UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 13 Dec 2017, 08:27

seaspear wrote:Remote vehicles were used in the defences of the Normandy beaches,lately the Russian army have promoted their Vikhr,Kord,and Uran9 vehicles certainly the British army is promoting the Terrier combat engineering remote vehicle


None of them fulfill the roll of an MBT, or anything close to it though. The Russian ones especially are barely functional smokescreens to push propaganda imagery of Russia being 'ahead' in that area. Same as the nonsense they put out about the T-14 having a 152mm cannon variant or it being autonomous if they wanted.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1403
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby seaspear » 13 Dec 2017, 09:53

I relied on the article from army news services by Dvid Vergun quoting Mjor Alan L Stepenson an acquisitions Corps officer for mounted requirements who spoke at the future ground combat vehicles on Nov 30 , certainly he spoke positively on developments in the short term I would recommend googling this article.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 13 Dec 2017, 10:03

seaspear wrote:I relied on the article from army news services by Dvid Vergun quoting Mjor Alan L Stepenson an acquisitions Corps officer for mounted requirements who spoke at the future ground combat vehicles on Nov 30 , certainly he spoke positively on developments in the short term I would recommend googling this article.


They can say what they will, but the simple fact, unfortunately, is that the technology simply does not exist and has no such official programs in any country. People at events talk (as LordJim said) about UCAVs replacing manned flight, but that isn't any closer either.

zanahoria
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby zanahoria » 17 Dec 2017, 12:26

Is this tweet posted by N. Drummond a development that could potentially address the obselensce issues with C2?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 17 Dec 2017, 13:05

I doubt it.

As a note, the MoD put out a requirement for the Thermal Sights replacement to be brought ahead of 2023 (when LEP occurs) due to it becoming obsolete much faster than they thought.

Funny how they worded it, given the way it uses its thermals was obsolete 20 years ago already...

zanahoria
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby zanahoria » 17 Dec 2017, 14:54

Should we just switch to Leopard then, with the possibility of engineering/design collaboration with the Germans? Or throw our lot in with the US and the Abrams?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 17 Dec 2017, 17:07

The Leopard 2A7 wouldn't be much cheaper than just getting M1A2s, but its all about what variant you get.

The M1A2 SEPv3 is a literal world away from the basic M1A2. Just as the Leopard 2A7 itself would still require some changes to be adequately protected.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 18 Dec 2017, 18:55

Mounting the gun was never really the problem in the first place. Stowage for ammunition was.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3991
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Ron5 » 19 Dec 2017, 01:00

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Mounting the gun was never really the problem in the first place. Stowage for ammunition was.


If I read it right, he was suggesting fitting the entire turret which would solve the turret ammo storage problem. Would it not?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2590
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 19 Dec 2017, 01:45

Ron5 wrote:
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Mounting the gun was never really the problem in the first place. Stowage for ammunition was.


If I read it right, he was suggesting fitting the entire turret which would solve the turret ammo storage problem. Would it not?


Fitting the Leopard's turret definitely wouldn't work. The Leo 2 turret only carries 15 rounds in its turret. The remainder are kept in a hideously unsafe frontal ammo rack in the crew compartment. Similar to the Challenger's hull storage. (Although somewhat worse, as while the Challenger's are in armoured wet bins in the middle of the tank, the Leo's are sitting quite literally to the right of the driver!)

The Challenger hull couldn't fit this into its internal shape.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 19 Dec 2017, 22:36

I think Rheinmetall will genuinely find a way to make 120mm smooth bore a realistic possibility on the CR2, I just don't think it'll be practically or financially viable to MoD.

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Zealot » 20 Dec 2017, 13:55

RunningStrong wrote:I think Rheinmetall will genuinely find a way to make 120mm smooth bore a realistic possibility on the CR2


They already have, they want to replace the entire turret. Yeah... Not gonna happen. The remodeling of existing turrets during CLIP was already deemed too expensive.

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby james k » 26 Jan 2018, 17:14

British Army 408 delivered (227 still in service, including 59 used for training or held in reserve) So what happened to the balance of the vehicles? They've not been scrapped or sold have they?

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Zealot » 26 Jan 2018, 22:24

118 were placed in storage after the 2010 cuts, that's 404; plus one lost in Iraq is 405. No idea about the last 3.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby benny14 » 26 Jan 2018, 23:39

227 + 118 removed in 2010 = 345

Any idea what happened to the other 62? Hopefully they are in storage somewhere. Also hoping the latest batch to get scrapped with the armored brigade are put in storage encase we need them in the future.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11756
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Jan 2018, 07:44

Zealot wrote:No idea about the last 3.


Have both of the two bidding consortia (for the modernisation) been given a live tank, to play with?

One in the back room of Bovington, while :D they are preparing the display stand for it?

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2032
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby dmereifield » 27 Jan 2018, 07:56

benny14 wrote:227 + 118 removed in 2010 = 345

Any idea what happened to the other 62? Hopefully they are in storage somewhere. Also hoping the latest batch to get scrapped with the armored brigade are put in storage encase we need them in the future.


Any chance they might reverse the decision to reduce the numbers in the on-going review?

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1562
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Timmymagic » 27 Jan 2018, 09:31

dmereifield wrote:Any chance they might reverse the decision to reduce the numbers in the on-going review?


Zero. Nada. The best we can hope for is no further disposals.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby benny14 » 27 Jan 2018, 11:41

dmereifield wrote:Any chance they might reverse the decision to reduce the numbers in the on-going review?

Not unless they decide to keep the armored brigade, which will only happen if they remove one or both of the strike brigades. Even if we wanted to, I dont think we can afford not to because we are not upgrading enough Challenger and Warriors.

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11756
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Jan 2018, 11:53

benny14 wrote: because we are not upgrading enough Challenger and Warriors.


Always look on the bright side...

In 2014 the numbers sought for Warriors looked like this
"Jun 23, 2014 - Within that group, 449 vehicles (69.8%) will also get the WFLIP program's new turret and weapon system. The remaining ABSV Warriors will be turretless, and carry out field repair and recovery roles using winch and crane attachments."
and there was a worry about finding enough hulls in mechanically reasonable condition.

With the shaving of the bdes with MBT rgmnts down to just two, the need for the turreted Warriors is now for just 4 AI bns and BATUS + some RA versions (to keep the REME job doable within fielded units), so that worry should be one of the past
- the optimist would say that ABSV could be re-scoped to include Mortar & Ambulance variants? The abundance of riches... lots of hulls and not much money :roll:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 28 Jan 2018, 06:40

I must be out of touch here, as I thought the Armoured Infantry Brigades were to comprise one Armoured and three Armoured Infantry Battalions each. Is the forth battalion to be a Recce Regiment with Ajax as I thought the idea of including "Protected" Battalions had been ditched?

Is the Warrior tall enough to be a simple conversion to a mortar carrier? I am sure this has been raised in the past, with the conclusion that unlike the Fv432, the mortar could not be held in the ready to fire position due to the height of the compartment on the Warrior. My preference would be to either use MIVs in this role in both the Armoured and Mechanised Infantry or purchase a towed 120mm mortar, again my prefernece being the Brandt rifles weapon as used by many nations such as France the Netherlands and now the USMC. Far better than a standard 120mm with greater range almost equlaing the 105mm Light Gun and more powerful shell.

Using the MIV instead of Warrior hulls may involve more cash up front but it will save money and provide the Army with a better platform. I suppose a lot is going to depend on the now Full SDR instead of a SDSR, and how the MoD's finances are affected.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Gabriele » 28 Jan 2018, 08:42

Under A2020 refine it's 1 tank regiment, 2 battalions on Warrior plus 2 Reserve battalions paired and no Cavalry as all Ajax regiments are swallowed by Strike.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby benny14 » 28 Jan 2018, 09:06

Gabriele wrote:Under A2020 refine it's 1 tank regiment, 2 battalions on Warrior plus 2 Reserve battalions paired and no Cavalry as all Ajax regiments are swallowed by Strike.

Did not know that. Is there going to be AJAX attached to the tank regiments in a scout role?

Online
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11756
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Jan 2018, 09:25

Gabriele wrote: plus 2 Reserve battalions paired

Are those 2+2 as per the 2013 announcement, or have there been adjustments (as to which and where those units are)?

As for Benny's -above - we are now going to have "divisional" recce as the bdes are bereft of such an element. Or "self recce" if only a Strike Bde is deployed.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Gabriele » 28 Jan 2018, 09:27

I'm not aware of anything more than the usual recce platoon of 8 within Chally and Warrior units. Unlikely to be more, light even be less: Ajax was procured to build up 3 Cavalry regiments, one per armoured Brigade. Now they Plan For four regiments, two in each Strike Brigade. Same number of vehicles, with only "saving" coming from 1 tank and 2 Warrior units canishing. You do the math.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: NickB and 6 guests