FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

[RetroSicotte]

Again remember, if you buy foreign, then what do you do about CRARRV, Trojan, Titan? Run two fleets? Non common parts? Or spend more to get those versions from others, including redeveloping them to do the same?

[RetroSicotte]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54126146

Wallace denies the tanks are going.

[bobp]

Wallace denies the tanks are going.

But he does not rule out a cut in numbers

[Tempest414]

Here we go again just when we need to growing our defence these pricks are Cutting it again dressed up as they wont be as bad as leaked are't we great and once again we will end up spending more and getting less and this bunch of dicks will blame industry for the high cost and patting them self on the back for spending the bear minimum of 2%

[Poiuytrewq]

Secretary of State for Defense Ben Wallace MP quoted in today's Telegraph:

The upgrade programme for Britain’s fleet of Challenger 2 main battle tanks is considered vulnerable and although the MoD has committed money for a future generation of Boxer wheeled infantry fighting vehicles and Ajax tracked reconnaissance vehicles, questions remain about the viability and affordability of such a mixed force.

Mr Wallace denied recent rumours that Britain would get rid of Challenger 2, but did not confirm all 227 would be upgraded.

“We’re not scrapping all the tanks,” he said. “We still have a requirement, until technology changes, for elements of armour both heavy and light." He would not be drawn on the relative sizes of the heavy and light elements.

When asked if there was merit in buying the MoD out of the Ajax contract and investing the money in the modular Boxer system he said the answer would be in the review.

“The armoured division of today is different to that of 1991...we are talking, ultimately, about lethality and mobility.

“Will we produce very lethal forces, yes. Will we be able to produce mobile forces, yes.

“The question then comes down to how do you achieve mass - do you do it through concentration of force, through allies or in fact do you not need mass because...you’ve completely softened up the enemy before you’ve begun, using long-range deep fires, which is of course what the Russians have done.

“What hand-held weapons do our enemies have? What deep fires do they have?

“There’s no point in us trundling along if the Russians can pick us off in the way they picked off the Ukrainians with deep fires, deep artillery, 50, 60, 70 kilometres away.

“So that means more investment in electronic warfare and signals intelligence, cloaking, hiding yourself. We know that if we can be found a lot of us can be killed.”

[Lord Jim]

But he does not rule out a cut in numbers

But that was expected considering we are planning (at present) to go from three to two Armoured Infantry Brigades, and maybe BATUS is on the table in the Integrated review, who knows.

[mr.fred]

“The armoured division of today is different to that of 1991...we are talking, ultimately, about lethality and mobility.

I wonder what he thinks he means by that? Post upgrade Warrior and Challenger will be better armed in absolute terms, but not so much relative terms. Mobility is probably worse as Ajax is so much heavier than CVR(T) and logistics has been cut.

The question then comes down to how do you achieve mass - do you do it through concentration of force, through allies or in fact do you not need mass because...you’ve completely softened up the enemy before you’ve begun, using long-range deep fires, which is of course what the Russians have done.

Can someone point him in the direction of the histories of the First World War and particularly the lessons learn regarding artillery during the Battle of the Somme?
Also point out that the Russians have both mass and supporting fires.

There’s no point in us trundling along if the Russians can pick us off in the way they picked off the Ukrainians with deep fires, deep artillery, 50, 60, 70 kilometres away.

Assuming that the heavy forces are slow, it seems.
There’s also no point if your speedy light forces are fixed in place by enemy forces because they lack organic firepower. A static force with no armour is far more vulnerable to a slowly moving force with decent protection. Not that modern armour is slow, mind.

[Ron5]

Wallace is a true politician, manages to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

I love the way he's going to counter Russian long range artillery with "hiding". Yep, that'll work.

I wonder what will be "let go". A worrying phrase if I ever heard one.

[Ron5]

Wallace is a true politician, manages to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

I love the way he's going to counter Russian long range artillery with "hiding". Yep, that'll work.

I wonder what will be "let go". A worrying phrase if I ever heard one.

I also wonder if they are really looking at a 130mm gun for Challenger. Probably wouldn't cost that much more and it would do a nice job of distracting attention from the cuts elsewhere.

[J. Tattersall]

Don't quite understand why 227 CR2 is necessarily the right answer? That number seems pretty much more than adequate for each of the regiments in the 2 armoured infantry brigades and the army reserve regiment.

If CR2 does end up being a lower priority than some other army capability surely it would be foolish to upgrade all 227 if that meant a higher priority capability would be starved of funds as a result.

[inch]

As I've pointed out in escort thread ,be prepared for swaging cuts coming our way .in the army as well as the navy ,infact across the gambit of our forces .the only thing I suggest if this comes to pass is we except we are regional player ie North Atlantic and that's it full stop .and stop trying to pretend we are anything else when facts on the budget , equipment and more importantly the political will or prepared to put you money where your mouth is and not cut .global Britain my arse folks ,global military ambition but nothing to back it up .and to be honest if they going to cut tanks to so few numbers and other army assets should it be right to send out troops abroad with not the right backing.it does make me wonder

[RetroSicotte]

Personally I have my bingo on some of the following leaving, if Challenger is not included and stays:

- Wave class tankers
- Argus
- Cut to 70 F-35B (We knew it'd be anyway, but formalised)
- FSS reduced to small "flexible" vessels (read - worse)
- Vikings
- Albions

- Puma
- Chinook cut to the 'older' frames
- Tranche 1 Typhoons
- Sentinel

- Either Warrior OR Ajax
- Titan/Trojan
- Panther/Husky pushed
- CVRT goes very quickly, Ajax ready or not

[SD67]

How many years would you really get out of CR2 upgrade vs Brand new M1/Leo2? What would the availability be in practice? An orphan product powered by an engine developed by Leyland in the 1950s?

I don’t know, but it’s a pointless question because you can’t have a brand new M1 or Leopard 2. They are all refurbished tanks a decade at least older than CR2.
That and the CR2 is powered by a Perkins engine.

I stand corrected. Perkins Condor V12. 1200 HP vs 1500 for Leo2 in a heavier vehicle which would get heavier still as a result of LEP. The likeliest outcome is a laborious program as each vehicle is pulled apart, which inspection soon discovers another list of components that are shagged out and need to be replaced to make the upgrade worthwhile. So numbers then need to be cut to fit it within the existing budget and you probably end up losing armor which is exactly what you’re trying to avoid.

I don’t believe there are no new build options. Poland are negotiating to license produce the Korean MBT. Instead of a “Challenger LEP” project there should be a “ heavy armor capability” requirement. Put out an RFP, Challenger can be one of the responses and let’s see how it stacks up against the other proposals

[mr.fred]

I don’t believe there are no new build options. Poland are negotiating to license produce the Korean MBT.

There are new build options, they’re just not Leopard 2s or M1 Abrams,

1200 HP vs 1500 for Leo2 in a heavier vehicle which would get heavier still as a result of LEP.

Which might be a concern of CR2 hadn’t been running around all over the place on 1200hp for the past couple of decades without notable problems. Or if there wasn’t a programme looking at uprating the installed power to 1500hp or so.

Instead of a “Challenger LEP” project there should be a “ heavy armor capability” requirement. Put out an RFP, Challenger can be one of the responses and let’s see how it stacks up against the other proposals

We’ll see what the costs for LEP are likely to be soon enough. If it does come out very expensive then maybe an off the shelf buy would be in order. If we do go looking, I’d suggest seeing if we could buy or license build some of the Japanese type 10s. They’d suit our likely use quite well. Other than that it’d be refurbed M1s or Leo2, new build K2s/Wilfs or..... no, I think that’s it. Cost each for any of them is going to be £10m each, I think, going by recent procurements elsewhere.

[Ron5]

I don’t know, but it’s a pointless question because you can’t have a brand new M1 or Leopard 2. They are all refurbished tanks a decade at least older than CR2.
That and the CR2 is powered by a Perkins engine.

Pretty sure you could buy a brand new M1 if you really wanted one. Folks have been buying used and refurbishing them to save money not because there wasn't an alternative.

[Ron5]

If you buy new, surely more would have to be bought to replace training vehicles like those in BATUS, along with stocks of spares etc. I find it hard to image that would be cheaper than upgrading CH2.

I've read authoritative estimates of up to an average of 12 million pounds per upgraded CH2. Whether that includes R&D, I do not know.

[Ron5]

- Cut to 70 F-35B (We knew it'd be anyway, but formalised)

Minor niggle but you can't cut something you don't have or haven't budgeted the money to buy.

But I'd go along with you on cutting the Navy's amphib ability to close to zero. That would save a shed load of current money and in my opinion, is a capability the UK can do without. Not sure if there's any other current capability I would say the same about. But that's for another thread.

[SD67]

I’m sorry but to this non-military but experienced observer this process just sounds incredibly amateurish.

The army needs to specify clearly what capability it needs and for how long and issue an RFP. That’s how it generally works in every other field of heavy industry.

Then we would find out for sure what tanks are in production/able to have production restarted and I suspect once there’s an open competition we’ll be pleasantly surprised. Who knows RBSL may offer a new build option and regenerate the entire UK industry. The Franco-German project might offer to take us in. You don’t know until you ask and industry will not engage unless the process is transparent and objective otherwise you’re wasting their time.

I fear the army maybe digging their grave with this as well as warrior and ajax. An upgrade program is easy to cut - see Nimrod. An orphan product is always vulnerable. Anyway we’ll see

[ArmChairCivvy]

- Vikings

Why would they go - the BVs are much older - having gone tru a re-manufacture fairly recently?

Titan/Trojan

Would be a fair guess, except that your assumption was an MBT on the same chassis remaining part of the line up

[mr.fred]

Pretty sure you could buy a brand new M1 if you really wanted one. Folks have been buying used and refurbishing them to save money not because there wasn't an alternative.

You could have many things if you want them enough, but it’s going to cost...

I've read authoritative estimates of up to an average of 12 million pounds per upgraded CH2. Whether that includes R&D, I do not know.

Any chance of a source?
In case it’s Nicholas Drummond, I would not consider him to be an authoritative source.

[RetroSicotte]

- Cut to 70 F-35B (We knew it'd be anyway, but formalised)

Minor niggle but you can't cut something you don't have or haven't budgeted the money to buy.

But I'd go along with you on cutting the Navy's amphib ability to close to zero. That would save a shed load of current money and in my opinion, is a capability the UK can do without. Not sure if there's any other current capability I would say the same about. But that's for another thread.

Crucial clarirfication, I am heavily against cutting amphib.

I was simply saying it's what I think they might pick if they can't choose Challenger. Those are not ones I'd be okay with in the slightest.

[RetroSicotte]

- Vikings

Why would they go - the BVs are much older - having gone tru a re-manufacture fairly recently?

Titan/Trojan

Would be a fair guess, except that your assumption was an MBT on the same chassis remaining part of the line up

Not saying it makes sense, just what I feel they could feel they'd get away with because they aren't big "public eye" ones.

Tanks are easy to sell to the public as "oh no it's being cut". Vikings/Trojan etc aren't. Which is my worry that if Challenger stays, the supporting elements go because these reviews aren't about capability, they're about how much they feel they can cut this time without getting backlash.

That's all these reviews ever are.

[Ron5]

Pretty sure you could buy a brand new M1 if you really wanted one. Folks have been buying used and refurbishing them to save money not because there wasn't an alternative.

You could have many things if you want them enough, but it’s going to cost...

I've read authoritative estimates of up to an average of 12 million pounds per upgraded CH2. Whether that includes R&D, I do not know.

Any chance of a source?
In case it’s Nicholas Drummond, I would not consider him to be an authoritative source.

No it was not him. I did say authoritative

[Ron5]

because these reviews aren't about capability, they're about how much they feel they can cut this time without getting backlash.

That's all these reviews ever are.

Ain't that the truth.

[Lord Jim]

I cannot see the Vikings going and the Bv206s are up for replacement with the latest version of the Viking the leading contender. IF we are going to make the "High North" a major commitment these vehicles are essential as well as being very useful in other theatres.

I can only see Titan and Trojan going if the CR2 is totally withdrawn as all three are closely linked as is the Challenger Armoured Recovery vehicle with the former being some of our newest AFVs and again very useful. Until we actually get Combat Engineering platforms based on either Ajax or Boxer they are all we have in this category as their roles cannot be carried out by Terrier either.

As for looing to Japan (Type 10) or South Korea (K2), both these are very expensive platforms, probably the most expensive platforms actually. If we decided to go for new build the only real option would be a version of the Leopard 2A7, but if the figure of £12M per tank for the CR2 LEP is accurate, it will be far cheaper than any possible nee vehicle.

The condition of the CR2 fleet is actually pretty good as the fleet has been rotated through storage and has an annual millage limit imposed on, something the UK has done for decades. There shouldn't be any nasty surprises, more likely the biggest danger is the size of the LEP increasing as those in charge keep finding things that could be replaced/upgraded for a small cost. The problem is these small extras will add up and eventually become a considerable cost increase.