FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

shark bait wrote:
Tinman wrote:
If shark bait wants a tank made on commercial spec, let him face the first round coming the other way.
I never said commercial spec, your now making things up to fuel your own argument.

Let's dumb it down for you. David brown are an engineering company, operating commercially, on public sector contracts. A big part if their business is transmission, particularly for tractors. However once called upon they use a higher grade alloy, add some thickness to components and use the same engineers , fitters , equipment and suppliers to produce gear boxes for tanks and boats, in fact I believe it is a david brown inside the challenger 2, and will be in the type 26. Here they can use existing skills and plant to save money and benifit from existing purchasing power and economies of scale

Now let's compare that to the nuclear reactor built by Rolls Royce. That department only builds the components for uk nuclear sub's. Any lull in activity means staff are laid off, skills and equipment are lost. Rebuilding the capability is now difficult where as david brown will carry on through the lull based on their other commercial operations.

The story is similar for suspension components, the electronics, the engine, the weapon's, the hull, and everything else. All we are lacking is a place to put them all together.
Let me dumb it down for you, how long has the UK been out of producing MBT? Has that organic base been sold off?
How much more are a tax payer willing to pay for a bespoke MBT just to satisfy your ego?

I'm no expert on how a MBT operates, but I know that they love logistics, I've been very well trained at killing MBT, saw a few from the opposite side of a two way range.
Leopard and Abrahams upgrades provide best value to the tax payers,

For example the javelin (not designed as a moped killer) will K kill at best or M Kill at worst either of those.

80,00 vs your BAE Nimrod MK 4 fantasy.

Cost versus benefit we can, but we can buy cheaper, slip into the logistical support. Or we can design a bespoke MBT that

Only we will use at massive expense.

You propse that. What do you propse to cut to gain that?

I'd rather have a AH64E fleet and either or leopard or M1a3-4

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

sharkbait
"The best use of a turbine is driving a shaft at a near constant speed, such as a turbofan or generator. For use in a tank I couldn't recommend it for direct drive, but in and electric hybrid system it could be great. In such a system it would run at the same optimum speed all day long, turning a generator and delivering great efficiencies. The design then has great power density, good efficiency, low moving parts, is modular, and the electric motors can be placed very close to the point of delivery reducing transmission components. It would be a great system if you could get the batteries right."
What are you going to do with all the power your constantly running GT is producing? Even with an electric drive system you will spend a lot of time producing far more power than can be used The problem with AFVs is the constantly changing power requirements. The only instances of relatively constant power requirements I can think of are when the AFV is static but requires its electrical systems (GCE, Sensors, Radios etc.) operating,(hence the Aux Gene on British tanks), but this is in the low power region where GTs are most inefficient. Or on a long road march on something like a motorway, which will happen so seldom that its hardly worth considering.
The only way to get efficiencies on an AFV is to employ multiple GTs, as you mentioned in your edit. This does introduce other problems however. Two or more small engines are inherently less efficient than one large one, they would take up more room be heavier and considerable increase overall complexity, add to maintenance requirements and of course cost more.
A twin GT powered electric drive with a relatively large battery pack could be a workable arrangement. Bringing down overall fuel consumption and offering considerable scope for positioning the various components, without adding to much in terms of complexity and maintenance.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

it would generate at the mean power consumption, and then have a battery to smooth out the peaks and troughs in demand
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

sharkbait
In my opinion a GT running at an efficient speed would still generate far more power than could be used. Using a large battery pack would certainly help in evening out the power requirements but not sufficiently to over come the problem. I could be wrong of course, though I'd be surprised if I was. A duel engine arrangement with one engine operating at an efficient speed in association with a large battery pack, with the second switching on and off and varying its output as necessary should be a more fuel efficient option. If that would provide sufficient improvement I don't know.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

No you can just tune the gas turbine to be most efficient at the output you want. The compressor for example will be more efficient as you increase the air flow, until it reaches a peak. From here the air flow can be increased but the efficiency begins to drop. This peak in efficiency is related to the size of the compressor, so the design can be scaled accordingly to match the peak to the desired air flow.
@LandSharkUK

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Tinman wrote: Commercial standards, look at HMS Ocean, for an example at how commercial vs military stands up.
Naval design standards vs. civilian marine design standards doesn't necessarily carry over to the Land domain. In any case, I think that Sharkbait may mean that the components are made for sale rather than to commercial standards. If he doesn't mean that, I would make that point anyway. Horstman being a good example. Military specification but made on a commercial basis rather than selling direct to UK Gov.
The cost of regenerating MBT production is?
I'd guess somewhere between £200m and £1000m, depending on what approach you take
Where do we produce them? Do we build new plants for that?

The old vickers plant on the Tyne is specialising in Other than MBT.

Plus it's no longer in BAE. Which is either a blessing or a curse.{/quote]
Well, we could build new plants since it would mostly be a final assembly lines. There are quite a few factories mostly focussed on civil work that have the skills and capacity to build armoured vehicle structure, all the subcomponents are made in existing factories all over the place anyway. If nothing else the old Vickers plant is now owned by the Reece group, which is an umbrella company that own Pearson Engineering (http://www.pearson-eng.com), who make engineering equipment for the British Army, amongst others, and who are currently overhauling the structure of the CR2: http://www.pearson-eng.com/news/
Just to go back to the commercial argument, there's plenty of commercial firearms out there, body armour, lids, parachutes, ive used military versions, all apart from parachutes on ops, yet I wonder why commercial items are not comparable on levels of protection etc.

If shark bait wants a tank made on commercial spec, let him face the first round coming the other way.
Unless they are made in a Government arsenal, aren't all firearms commercial? Is a rifle that, for the sake of example, Accuracy International makes for the government any different to one they make for a private customer? Why would so many soldiers supplement their issue equipment with commercially available gear if Government Issue is always better?
Part of the problem with comparing issue gear with commercially available equipment is that there is no standard level. Thus you can cherry pick examples to prove whatever you want. You can hold up a cheap armour vest to show it is worse, or you could look at a very high-end body armour system to show that the private market is the best.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

In my opinion CR2 will be adequate, with some updates, until 2030, Baring the unexpected of course! This gives 15 years to produce a replacement. Due to the folly of successive governments allowing the demise of the UKs AFV production capability and the destruction of RARDE/MVEE/DRA if we were to do it ourselves it would not be easy. Though it is the route I would go for. What I wouldn't do is replace CR2 with Leopard, Abrams etc. that's just getting more of the same.
Is that what we need? In fact that's the first question we need to ask, do we need a MBT? If we do , what do we need it to do and what form should it take? Does it need to be a 70 ton monster with a large calibre high velocity gun? Perhaps in the future it will need to be able to engage targets other than the traditional ones of AFVs and providing direct support of infantry with HE. Maybe aerial threats will be more important, helicopters, UAVs perhaps even fast jets.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

whitelancer wrote:In my opinion CR2 will be adequate, with some updates, until 2030, Baring the unexpected of course! This gives 15 years to produce a replacement. Due to the folly of successive governments allowing the demise of the UKs AFV production capability and the destruction of RARDE/MVEE/DRA if we were to do it ourselves it would not be easy. Though it is the route I would go for. What I wouldn't do is replace CR2 with Leopard, Abrams etc. that's just getting more of the same.
Is that what we need? In fact that's the first question we need to ask, do we need a MBT? If we do , what do we need it to do and what form should it take? Does it need to be a 70 ton monster with a large calibre high velocity gun? Perhaps in the future it will need to be able to engage targets other than the traditional ones of AFVs and providing direct support of infantry with HE. Maybe aerial threats will be more important, helicopters, UAVs perhaps even fast jets.
I would have to agree with you there.
I don't think we will need a MBT with anything like the specification we have now. I would suggest that if open ground tank warfare isn't already dead it soon will be. However I can see the tank being reinvented for a specialist urban warfare vehicle where aircraft don't have the same domination.
@LandSharkUK

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

mr.fred wrote:
Tinman wrote: Commercial standards, look at HMS Ocean, for an example at how commercial vs military stands up.
Naval design standards vs. civilian marine design standards doesn't necessarily carry over to the Land domain. In any case, I think that Sharkbait may mean that the components are made for sale rather than to commercial standards. If he doesn't mean that, I would make that point anyway. Horstman being a good example. Military specification but made on a commercial basis rather than selling direct to UK Gov.
The cost of regenerating MBT production is?
I'd guess somewhere between £200m and £1000m, depending on what approach you take
Where do we produce them? Do we build new plants for that?

The old vickers plant on the Tyne is specialising in Other than MBT.

Plus it's no longer in BAE. Which is either a blessing or a curse.{/quote]
Well, we could build new plants since it would mostly be a final assembly lines. There are quite a few factories mostly focussed on civil work that have the skills and capacity to build armoured vehicle structure, all the subcomponents are made in existing factories all over the place anyway. If nothing else the old Vickers plant is now owned by the Reece group, which is an umbrella company that own Pearson Engineering (http://www.pearson-eng.com), who make engineering equipment for the British Army, amongst others, and who are currently overhauling the structure of the CR2: http://www.pearson-eng.com/news/
Just to go back to the commercial argument, there's plenty of commercial firearms out there, body armour, lids, parachutes, ive used military versions, all apart from parachutes on ops, yet I wonder why commercial items are not comparable on levels of protection etc.

If shark bait wants a tank made on commercial spec, let him face the first round coming the other way.
Unless they are made in a Government arsenal, aren't all firearms commercial? Is a rifle that, for the sake of example, Accuracy International makes for the government any different to one they make for a private customer? Why would so many soldiers supplement their issue equipment with commercially available gear if Government Issue is always better?
Part of the problem with comparing issue gear with commercially available equipment is that there is no standard level. Thus you can cherry pick examples to prove whatever you want. You can hold up a cheap armour vest to show it is worse, or you could look at a very high-end body armour system to show that the private market is the best.
Soldiers supplement their own gear for the ally factor, to look slightly different, it a bit like when your at school and the brand of what you use comes into the foray.

Issue tissue is fit for purpose, signed off and actually very good, go back 22 years to when I first joined it a quantum leap.

I'm glad you brought up AI, bloody good rifle, first used by them now mainstream. Could they make an assault rifle, possibly. Cost?

I'm not saying we couldn't generate MBT building, it would just be far too expensive and impractical when the alternatives are out there.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Tinman wrote:
Soldiers supplement their own gear for the ally factor, to look slightly different, it a bit like when your at school and the brand of what you use comes into the foray.

Issue tissue is fit for purpose, signed off and actually very good, go back 22 years to when I first joined it a quantum leap.

I'm glad you brought up AI, bloody good rifle, first used by them now mainstream. Could they make an assault rifle, possibly. Cost?

I'm not saying we couldn't generate MBT building, it would just be far too expensive and impractical when the alternatives are out there.
The soldiers of the British Army at least have good kit now, but in the past it is clear that they supplemented to make up for flaws in the issue kit. The good stuff they have now is a) the result of that and b)pretty much all high-end, commercially developed kit.

AI are a high-end, commercial outfit. There are plenty of commercial outfits making assault rifles where it is legal to sell them commercially, and those at high quality. Another example: Lewis Machine and Tool in the US? Manufacturers of the L129?

I don't know that it would be so much more expensive to develop our own heavy AFV family. That's important - it's not just about a single gun platform, but the whole array of vehicles based off common components. Getting the numbers up brings the non-recurring expenses per vehicle down. It also reduces maintenance and training costs while simplifying logistics as the consumables should be the same for all vehicles.

Would buying foreign be cheaper? If you timed it right you might avoid paying their NRE, but you would be paying their tax as well. Would you be able to guarantee support as well?

User avatar
JoeClaxton
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 06 May 2015, 16:31
Contact:

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by JoeClaxton »

RetroSicotte wrote:Factory is closed. Bout as dead as it gets.

We'd have to build back up to it steadily. We have light vehicles like Foxhound and Jackal on our construction, but nothing bigger anymore. Terrier was the last AFV.

Perhaps the Russian Armata class tank will make people sit up and think. Re the design, from what little I've read so far (I'm new to Defence), I like the thought of shielding the crew within the main body of the vehicle and boxes on the outside to explode income armour piercing rounds before they can pierce the shell.
Joe Claxton, Cllr.


Westminster Chimes
Suite 423
266 Banbury Rd
Summertown
Oxford
OX2 7DL

http://www.joeclaxton.co.uk
JbcPublicAffairs@gmail.com

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7927
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by SKB »

March 2015 - Defence chiefs want speed limit for armoured vehicles doubled to 40 MPH, amid concerns of traffic jams and dangerous overtaking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... roads.html

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by marktigger »

gas turbine is a major resources drain, have you seen the logistic tail thats needed to support the Abrahms it one of the reasons during the invasion of Iraq the yanks had to stop and we had to chop the bulk of our transport to them to resupply them!

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote:gas turbine is a major resources drain, have you seen the logistic tail thats needed to support the Abrahms it one of the reasons during the invasion of Iraq the yanks had to stop and we had to chop the bulk of our transport to them to resupply them!
yes but the american implementation is wrong, direct drive and reheat both make it difficult.
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by marktigger »

diesel engine is more efficient

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

marktigger wrote:diesel engine is more efficient
for direct driving a tank yes. Not for most other applications.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1745
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

British Tank Crushes Learner Driver's Car in GermanyImage
There's a lot to remember when you're a learner driver but a pretty good rule is: don't pull out in front of tanks.

That's what happened to an 18-year-old driving this Toyota Yaris in the Lippe district of Germany on Monday.

According to local police she pulled out in front of a column of British military vehicles travelling on a specially hardened ring road around the town, often used by British forces stationed nearby to transport tanks and other armoured vehicles.

The driver of the tank, a 24-year-old British serviceman, wasn't able to bring his Challenger 2 tank to a stop in time.

Inevitably, in a battle between 62-tonnes of armour and a one-tonne hatchback, there was only going to be one winner.

Luckily the driver of the car was completely unharmed in the incident, and the tank crew pulled her free.

The car, however, suffered 12,000 Euros (£8,600) worth of damage.

The tank, not entirely surprisingly - was unscathed.
Read More: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/3 ... in-germany

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2677
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by bobp »

Only 8500 pounds damage, surely the car is a lump of scrap after that.

User avatar
Tiny Toy
Member
Posts: 271
Joined: 06 May 2015, 09:54

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tiny Toy »

bobp wrote:Only 8500 pounds damage, surely the car is a lump of scrap after that.
Germans like to repair things when we would just throw them away ;)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7927
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by SKB »

Imagine writing out the insurance claim box for 'description of accident' .... ;)

cpu121
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 10 May 2015, 02:09

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by cpu121 »

bobp wrote:Only 8500 pounds damage, surely the car is a lump of scrap after that.
The journalist just took the "frrom €11,990" list price from toyota.de

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1745
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Withdrawal Of The British Tanks Put On Hold. At Least For Now...
British Ministry of Defence decided that the proceedings, the aim of which is to withdraw the Challenger 2 tanks from storage, are going to be temporarily suspended.

According to the statement sent to Defence24.pl, the British MoD has suspended the reduction of the quantity of the stored Challenger 2 main battle tanks, at least until 2016. Currently the British are planning to review the policy pertaining the equipment that was withdrawn from the active service. Elements of the vehicles that were permanently decommissioned or that were modified so that they act as a drivers’ training devices, are all currently being utilized in order to support the operational activities carried out by the tanks that remain in the active service.

The British Army is going to check whether the equipment which is not being used by the front-line units should be stored, which would make it possible to reintroduce the vehicles into active service, or whether that equipment should be permanently decommissioned. Due to that reason it was decided to suspend the process of permanent withdrawal when it comes to the Challenger 2 tanks.
Read More: http://www.defence24.com/233391,withdra ... st-for-now

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Quite depressing really when one looks at the kind of news mentioned above and instinctively considers it to be some form of 'victory' within the defence establishment...

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Clearly that victory is bettered by the astonishing savings from decimating the artillery that could actually keep up with the MBTs in a "real" war:

"Armoured Fighting Vehicles

Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to his Department's Business Plan 2011-2015, how much has been saved in (a) Resource DEL, (b) Capital DEL, (c) annually managed expenditure and (d) in total from the reduction of heavy artillery armoured vehicles (AS90) by around 35 per cent. [71298]

Dr Fox [holding answer 12 September 2011]: Total savings over the period 2011-12 to 2014-15 are expected to be in the region of £2 million, mostly Resource DEL. These savings reflect a reduction in AS90 numbers and track activity.

Mr Scott: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Challenger main battle tanks are held in long-term storage in (a) the UK and (b) Germany. [71932]

Peter Luff: The number of Challenger 2 main battle tanks held in long-term storage in the UK and Germany is shown in the following table:

Location Number of tanks
United Kingdom

59

Germany

94"
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)

User avatar
CarrierFan2006
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 01 May 2015, 06:11

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by CarrierFan2006 »

Quick question, not intended as a troll, but has anyone here ever actually used a Ch2? Fought alongside it? Seen it in action? All this talk about the toe armour, for example, overlooks the fact that the vehicle concerned was hit by a remotely initiated cluster of 3 or 4 155mm artillery rounds buried under the road. No tank, German, American, Israeli, could take that. Ch2 is actually well protected but it's not invincible. The blue on blue was another Ch2, hitting the turret with a CHARM3 gun. Given the vehicle's capabilities at the time, it is no surprise that the damage was done. One should also remember how many M1A2s were lost to enemy action at the time. Even given the greater numbers of vehicles present in theatre, there is still a big disparity. M1 is clearly no more invincible than Ch2. Both ended up loaded with applique armour and extra protection built on the experience of combat.

In terms of the mobility, I've always felt that the 1500hp engine should have been installed. It would have been a quick, relatively cheap upgrade given that the R&D was already completed for the export market. I would add, however, that outright speed and fuel range is no indication of actual combat radius. For a given range for any such vehicle, realistic combat radius is about half, or less, than theoretical straight line range on a flat road, unopposed. The mobility, firepower and protection triangle comes down to organisational doctrine rather than a paper theory of how fast a tank is in a drag race.

As for the gun, it's not all bad! Yes, it is a last gen gun as it has been in service for the better part of 20 years now. I'd agree that it needs attention. The problem is that there is no way to install the smooth bore gun without redesigning the entire tank and ammunition storage system. The 2 piece ammunition system means that there are 44 rounds of propellant available. These are stored below the turret ring in an armoured compartment. This has some advantages in terms of protection unless a cartridge is left out in the fighting compartment, which could result in an accidental initiation of the magazine as described earlier. The projectiles are stored above the turret ring in the bustle, meaning that the ammunition load can be changed depending upon the mission. It actually eases the logistical support requirements because the propellant cases can be carried separately and loaded whatever and wherever the circumstances, and the projectiles can be changed ad hoc. It comes down to doctrine and strategic planning. However, there are issues up the logistical supply chain when someone stops manufacturing the ammunition (D'oh!!) resulting in expensive one off manufacturing runs when required, which is where the NATO standard gun would have been a significant advantage.

Anyhoo... That's my 10 pence, for what it is worth!!

Post Reply