FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

All efforts by the Army should be concentrated on getting two Regiments worth of Challengers upgraded as per the Rheinmetall proposal. That should give us an MBT roughly on par with the Leopard 2A7V and the M1A2C when fully kited out. That will tide us over until the next generation of AFVs arrive in the 2040s.

Finding approximately £200M to fund this shouldn't be a problem unless money is taken out of the Defence Budget, the Army's slice being the most vulnerable, to fund improvements at GCHQ etc. Cancelling the Warrior CIP would cover than and reducing Ajax to around 150 hulls would also free up a substantial amount from the current £3.5Bn production contract.

Most of all the Army must get itself up to speed to defend its roles, organisation, and revised equipment plan in light of the Governments obvious shift in Defence policy.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Why would you want to maintain the MBT capability when you also want to cancel the IFVs?

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1292
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

mr.fred wrote:Why would you want to maintain the MBT capability when you also want to cancel the IFVs?
Probably the same logic that saw us purchasing aircraft carriers with minimal aircraft and escorts. Headlines over logic.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Finding approximately £200M to fund this shouldn't be a problem
That's enough for about 20 tanks. New turrets do not come cheap neither do new optronics.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:130 mm... here we come (the awkward Armata turret arrangement us said to be ... for a 140mm gun :) . But they will have to get the whole thing working first. That said: we are never in a hurry, either, are we?).
I'd guess there's about a 1 in 20 chance that the upgrade would include a 130mm gun. Sure would be fun to see tho. Put the cat among the pigeons :lol:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I overlooked this bit when the Griffin was 'announced'... was is at AUSA 2016?
" uses pieces of existing technology to lower costs and development time–and also return some investment to the Army for projects abandoned years ago. The Griffin's main gun is the XM360 120mm cannon that was designed at great cost under the now abandoned Future Combat Systems initiative. Remarkably, the gun weighs less than half the weight of the Abrams' 120mm cannon, but it packs the same punch. ."
- potential to have the same one on Challies, GD's UK-ised Griffins and Boxers (recoil permitting)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I overlooked this bit when the Griffin was 'announced'... was is at AUSA 2016?
" uses pieces of existing technology to lower costs and development time–and also return some investment to the Army for projects abandoned years ago. The Griffin's main gun is the XM360 120mm cannon that was designed at great cost under the now abandoned Future Combat Systems initiative. Remarkably, the gun weighs less than half the weight of the Abrams' 120mm cannon, but it packs the same punch. ."
- potential to have the same one on Challies, GD's UK-ised Griffins and Boxers (recoil permitting)?
If you're going to select a prototype gun, wouldn't the RM 130mm be a better choice? I think they claim a 50% better "punch".

By the way, the word is that despite GD using the ASCOD 2 chassis as the basis of their light tank prototype (it was cobbled together from the spare parts bin to see if the Army had any interest in the concept), there's very little ASCOD left in today's version. I think even the torsion bar suspension has been replaced.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yes, I am aware that nearly everything else than the hull was different from our production version; wasn't it a mockup (in metal) more than a working prototype, to be tested
Ron5 wrote: they claim a 50% better "punch".
Remarkably for the Leo's longer gun and a round that the older models can't handle 30% is being claimed
... horses and courses? Who is going to bet on Armatas turning up in hundreds/ thousands, or v.v.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1311
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by inch »

Just can't help thinking tho how good a 150 upgraded challenger tanks or so would do against 12,000 russian tanks rolling across the plains ,even if they were old ,and half not working , don't think Europes tank fleet going to do much just because off shear weight thrown against them no matter how good they are individually .I'm not saying we shouldn't upgrade them or Russia will come across the hills but that little number what good would it do ? Maybe I'm missing the point

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

inch wrote:Just can't help thinking tho how good a 150 upgraded challenger tanks or so would do against 12,000 russian tanks rolling across the plains ,even if they were old ,and half not working , don't think Europes tank fleet going to do much just because off shear weight thrown against them no matter how good they are individually .I'm not saying we shouldn't upgrade them or Russia will come across the hills but that little number what good would it do ? Maybe I'm missing the point
Russia will not be throwing "12,000" tanks anywhere in some giant doomblob. That isn't how either West or East operates.

Bear in mind of the Russian Ground forces (using the recent sourced wiki figures to save time) have:

- 350 T-90 (of which only 150 upgraded)
- 450 T-80 (of which only 175 upgraded)
- 2,000 T-72 (of which around 1,450 upgraded)

Unless they start digging into reserves (which are of older variants and questionable availability) they have around 2,800 in total in service, of which 1,775 are upgraded to a "level of threat concern" to the majority of leading western vehicle.

Armies of "12,000 tanks" rolling out do not exist in Russia. If they were building to that level, it would take a long, long, LONG time, and be highly visible years before.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2779
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Caribbean »

Just to add to @RS' comment, the European NATO members have approximately 2300 fairly modern tanks between them (plus the Greeks have around 1000 older Leo 1As, M60s and M48s - no idea how many are useable though). Add in the US contribution and we have broadly similar numbers to the Russians. Since we would be fighting a primarily defensive war, that would seem to give NATO the advantage in numbers
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote: total in service, of which 1,775 are upgraded to a "level of threat concern"
Furthermore, the announcement of aggregating offensive power back to divisional level (4 of them) seems to have been carried out - unlike most of the announcements - and you can find the four, with their locations, on pp. 9-10 in this one https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... wwppqDpoV8
- and where they sit does not look as poised for an offensive (unless you are 'Ukraine'... or Belorussia, which, judging from the way things are going there with many, many mini-Tianmen Squares, will not need to be invaded any time soon)

These quoted tank numbers have come at the cost of surface fleet, flying hours in the AF... and many more setbacks, some of which will need 'righting' - i.e. reallocating monies
- see p.6 in the linked assessment
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

mr.fred wrote:Why would you want to maintain the MBT capability when you also want to cancel the IFVs?
Because the Boxer can carry out the same role, even if it has to wait for a new turret mounting greater firepower. .50cal plus a javelin will do for the time being and will help with funding issues.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Ron5 wrote:hat's enough for about 20 tanks. New turrets do not come cheap neither do new optronics.
I stand corrected, I was basing this on a figure some quoted above of around £12M per tank for the upgrade.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

From the Pagey's twitter account. Tank with new turret is at ATDU getting some real development.

In the accompanying thread, he pours some ice cold water over the idea of 130mm gun.

Image

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote:pours some ice cold water over the idea of 130mm gun
Don't know who that famous man is, but, yes, there is also a rumour that the same turret that is proposed to be put onto the UK Challies could work wonders on the very old ("original") Norwegian Leo2A4s.
- not a big batch... but every little bit helps (with the unit cost :) )
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1460
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Don't know who that famous man is
Commanding Officer, Armoured Trials and Development Unit, Bovington, according to his twitter bio.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

On the Warrior thread attention was drawn to this paper (written evidence):
https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... /9638/pdf/

It includes an excellent 'potted' history of (designing &) building AFVs in the UK, i.e how we went from world leader to no IP of our own in no time at all (which in armour is decades).

However, this list is presented as "decisions taken" and I am not sure that we "are there yet"?
"The Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme includes:1. A new turret and smooth bore gun.2. A new Kinetic Energy (KE) Round bought from the US or Germany.3. A new Day/Night Hunter Killer capability which will include greater range requirements for the new round.4. A new upgrade card for the ballistic computer.5. New Frontal Modular Armour (NMA).6. An Active Protection System (APS)either Trophy or Ironfist. Sources suggest that TrophyMedium Vehicle (MV) has been selected. This variant has also believed to have been purchased by Singapore.7. Upgrade of the Base Platform8. War stocks and Rheinmetall ammunition qualification.The armour and APS need to get through development integration critical design review and the NMA needs to complete development, all this before 2022 Quarter 3 review note proceeds."

- especially point 5 seems to be in lieu of the option of having a completely new turret? Have I missed something (I thought the latter was the favoured option)?
... and what is NMA, anyway
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

military
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 08 Aug 2020, 23:15
United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by military »

As a guess about NMA, I believe the kits of appliqué armour used in Iraq in 2003 for Challenger 2 were the same kits used for Challenger 1 in Iraq in 1991. Some of the appliqué armour goes on the front hull, so maybe they are replacing that?

The original website posting with this info seems rather speculative, although quite specific for the turret to be used on a Boxer replacement for Warrior.

https://battle-updates.com/update/uk-go ... ep-report/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Is point 5 referring to new modular armour for the front of the Hull? Or could it be an add on armour package for both the hull and the "New" turret, basically a TES set for use when deployed operationally. I can also soo any APS purchased being usable by as many platforms as possible, hence the reference to the "Medium" vehicle option. This would allow for a pool of systems to be held and added to vehicles when required, said vehicles having the relevant fitting and connectors already installed.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

It is possible that just interpretation of language is the problem here
Lord Jim wrote: could it be an add on armour package for both the hull and the "New" turret
- if so, it would roughly replicate the depleted uranium additional armour layers on M-1s: frontal glacis and the front curvature on both sides of the gun, on the turret

Some sketches of the placing of it (production line photos as 'underlying'):
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Ron5 wrote:pours some ice cold water over the idea of 130mm gun
Don't know who that famous man is, but, yes, there is also a rumour that the same turret that is proposed to be put onto the UK Challies could work wonders on the very old ("original") Norwegian Leo2A4s.
- not a big batch... but every little bit helps (with the unit cost :) )
The 130mm ?? That would be a turn up.

As would a new Challenger turret that could also (easily?) be mounted on Leo's as part of an upgrade package. Bet there would be a few countries that would fancy that. Esp with 130mm gun and proven ammo. OK now I'm getting crazy, time to lie down.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7227
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:On the Warrior thread attention was drawn to this paper (written evidence):
https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... /9638/pdf/

It includes an excellent 'potted' history of (designing &) building AFVs in the UK, i.e how we went from world leader to no IP of our own in no time at all (which in armour is decades).

However, this list is presented as "decisions taken" and I am not sure that we "are there yet"?
"The Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme includes:1. A new turret and smooth bore gun.2. A new Kinetic Energy (KE) Round bought from the US or Germany.3. A new Day/Night Hunter Killer capability which will include greater range requirements for the new round.4. A new upgrade card for the ballistic computer.5. New Frontal Modular Armour (NMA).6. An Active Protection System (APS)either Trophy or Ironfist. Sources suggest that TrophyMedium Vehicle (MV) has been selected. This variant has also believed to have been purchased by Singapore.7. Upgrade of the Base Platform8. War stocks and Rheinmetall ammunition qualification.The armour and APS need to get through development integration critical design review and the NMA needs to complete development, all this before 2022 Quarter 3 review note proceeds."

- especially point 5 seems to be in lieu of the option of having a completely new turret? Have I missed something (I thought the latter was the favoured option)?
... and what is NMA, anyway
Not sure why the confusion about a new turret. The 120mm smooth bore requires one. As shown in the picture from ATDU.

The program has not passed maingate (due this year) so "decisions taken" don't mean a whole lot. Personally I doubt an APS will be seen other than FFBNW.

I seem to remember from the first reveal of the RM proposal that a new armor package(s) were part of the offer. Mostly based on the old packages no longer fitting the upgraded vehicle esp turret. No doubt made from RM's finest.

military
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 08 Aug 2020, 23:15
United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by military »

Lord Jim wrote:Is point 5 referring to new modular armour for the front of the Hull? Or could it be an add on armour package for both the hull and the "New" turret, basically a TES set for use when deployed operationally.
I presume the turrets get new armour as the turrets will be newly manufactured by Rheinmetall / RBSL (not sure whether in Germany or the UK).

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

military wrote:I presume the turrets get new armour as the turrets will be newly manufactured
Would think so, esp. as armour development proceeds at pace
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply