FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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:from the T-80U the UK acquired to study.
Was that from the ROK, Sweden or DDR (which sort of became a subsidiary of the HO in Bonn)?
RetroSicotte wrote:The British Army themselves admitted that the DM53 from the smoothbore gun was more effective than the L27 from the L30A1.

Thus we can know that L27 is not adequate against the latest form of passive/ERA coverings, since the composite in the latest T-72s (T-72B3 onwards) has been significantly upgraded over the T-80Us time.
These are the little things that you need to put together from various reports over many years... difficult to find in any one document.
RetroSicotte wrote:The Challenger with the enhanced L55A1 though, as seen from Rhm now, would be capable of it too. It'd make the Challenger at least equal to the M829A4 used by the M1
+
Lord Jim wrote: IF that means a heavily modernised turret then so be it
Yep. Hence my question abut the 'provenance' of the turret
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 »

From what I have read, the Rheinmetall turret is that of the CR2 but stripped down and totally rebuilt. For me this bid is the only sensible one if the Army wants to keep the CR2 in service and relevant into the 2030s. In fact if a true capability progression programme was put in place for the next fifteen or so years, including upgrades like replacing the engine for example, with the Rheinmetall CAP upgrade installed we would once again have a truly world class Main Battle Tank.

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 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Agreed, but the gun must be first. We will have enough CR2s hanging around to provide spares for a while so the current FCS can soldier on for a few more years, but then it must also be replaced. Both at the same time, great, but the whole programme is being done on a shoe string to the best of my knowledge.
Firstly, thinking a smooth bore that misses is better than a rifled shot that hits is a good idea is absurd.

Secondly, I highly doubt the smoothbore weapon comes with an algorithm compatible with the CR2 Fire Control System, so you're either shooting blind or you're paying for a new FCS either way.
I am not advocating just doing the main gun and forgetting about the FCS, but the main gun needs to be the priority. To say the current FCS means the CR2 cannot hit anything is idiotic and an insult to the crews. Yes there are issues but the FCS does work, but is not in the same class as that in the latest Abrams. There is little that can be done to improve the current CHARM rifled gun in the CR", it is a dead end evolution wise.

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 »

The current gun may be at the end of its development, but it is not ineffective. More like not as effective as you might wish. The FCS is in a similar place but running the risk of being completely ineffective through lack of spares.

Updating gun and FCS at the same time is the cost effective option.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Lord Jim wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Agreed, but the gun must be first. We will have enough CR2s hanging around to provide spares for a while so the current FCS can soldier on for a few more years, but then it must also be replaced. Both at the same time, great, but the whole programme is being done on a shoe string to the best of my knowledge.
Firstly, thinking a smooth bore that misses is better than a rifled shot that hits is a good idea is absurd.

Secondly, I highly doubt the smoothbore weapon comes with an algorithm compatible with the CR2 Fire Control System, so you're either shooting blind or you're paying for a new FCS either way.
I am not advocating just doing the main gun and forgetting about the FCS, but the main gun needs to be the priority. To say the current FCS means the CR2 cannot hit anything is idiotic and an insult to the crews. Yes there are issues but the FCS does work, but is not in the same class as that in the latest Abrams. There is little that can be done to improve the current CHARM rifled gun in the CR", it is a dead end evolution wise.
You're missing the point, you can't just mix and match FCS with different guns. It doesn't work like that. If you change the gun you have to change the FCS otherwise you're back to completely manual shooting.

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 »

RunningStrong wrote:You're missing the point, you can't just mix and match FCS with different guns. It doesn't work like that. If you change the gun you have to change the FCS otherwise you're back to completely manual shooting.
Bingo.

Change the gun, you need to change the FCS anyway. The current one isn't designed for this gun at all. Totally different input values, totally different mounting, stabilisation, allowances and all the other things that make up the FCS input.

It's a redundant argument which comes first. You literally cannot get a new gun without a new FCS. (In theory one could modify the FCS, but the old one is so incompatible it would be even less efficient that just fitting a brand new one that already works with the gun.)

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 »

Ok then, the CSP must include both the gun and the FCS. The latter is compulsory with the former and the latter is wasted money without the former.

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

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

Post by whitelancer »

Though a new FCS is desirable, I see no reason you would need a new FCS just from changing the gun. A certain amount of reprograming yes, a completely new system no.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

whitelancer wrote:Though a new FCS is desirable, I see no reason you would need a new FCS just from changing the gun. A certain amount of reprograming yes, a completely new system no.
If only it was that simple. But it's not. You're likely talking a whole new firmware code development on what is already obsolete hardware.

You can't just plug a USB in and run the upgrade, you've then got to open the box to access, upgrade, reseal the box and FAT test it.

It's naive to think it would be a y cheaper than a whole new COTS FCS.

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 »

Which FCS does the current Rheinmetall bid include? Is it the one used in the latest Leo2 variant?

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 »

whitelancer wrote:Though a new FCS is desirable, I see no reason you would need a new FCS just from changing the gun. A certain amount of reprograming yes, a completely new system no.
It would depend to what degree the FCS is reprogrammable and to what extent the parameters are hard wired.

One would like to think that it would be fully reprogrammable.

The problem that I see is that the upgrade program was primarily to address the obsolescence issues with the fire control. I don’t know how much longer you can leave it before it can no longer be supported and, as such, non-functional. Furthermore, splitting the upgrade would make it cost more overall without making each stage notably cheaper since you’d need to repeat all the testing required for matching the gun to the fire control and prove it safe.

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

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

Post by whitelancer »

As its a subject I know a little about I thought it worth giving my opinion. But as you say one of the prime purposes of the update is to improve the fire control and sighting system not doing so would make the whole project rather pointless .

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 »

Well I just hope, that word again, that the cut in the fleet numbers is to allow a more comprehensive programme and not to simple find the funds to do the bare minimum of reducing obsolescence. The latter would leave the british Army with a Main Battle Tank that is functional but with limited battlefield utility. This would mean our remaining two Armoured Infantry Brigades would continue to lack hitting power, with their best anti-tank system being the Javelin ATGW carried by dismounted infantry! But how effective is the Javelin going to be in the future with the advances being made in both active and passive protection systems. If we are not going to properly equip our Armoured Infantry Brigades, they become little more than Parade Formations, as to use them against a peer opponent would be sending them to their slaughter. The thought of a British Armoured Infantry Brigade suffering the same fate as Ukrainian Armoured forces have in their current conflict doesn't bear thinking about.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:that the cut in the fleet numbers is to allow a more comprehensive programme
APS would be a good sweetener?
Lord Jim wrote:suffering the same fate as Ukrainian Armoured forces
The early fiascos were from 'lager' tactics... it isn't quite the Wild West or Boer War out there.
- but the footage shows that anything of lesser protection than a BMP-3 is pretty useless (or rather, a death trap) and also that top kills have been very frequent (nothing much left of the lighter vehicles, but on MBTs one can clearly see how they have been penetrated).
- Russian rocketry has had that sort of capability (out to 90 km) since the 90s, and someone might know more about their (Bonus like) rounds for tube artillery
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 »

Are the Russians using Bonus type submunitions or just good old bomblets like those that used to be used in the MLRS for example.

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 »

According to soldier magazine, there has been an upgrade of the thermal imager, independent of the LEP.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

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

Post by Pongoglo »

whitelancer wrote:As 56 are required by each Regiment for a total of 112 that would leave just 36 for training and sustainment. So no 3rd Regiment, at best the Yeomanry will provide a limited battle causality replacement capability.

It is hardly a surprise though given the announcement some time ago that the number of Armoured Regiments would be reduced to 2. Of course it does mean that updating challenger, if it actually happens, will cost more per Tank. Are we at point when the cost of maintaining such a reduced heavy armour capability is no longer worth it?
Interesting, have we gone firm on a Type 56, I'm a tad out of date. How does that work, 3 x Sqn of 4 x Troops with 4 Ch2 each equals 48 That would leave 8 spare, 2 X HQ tanks in each Sqn plus 2 in RHQ ?

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 »

I think it is 3 Sqn with HQ of 2 CR2 and 4 Trps of 4 CR2 giving a total of 54 CR2 plus the Regiment HQ with a further 2 CR2, bringing the final number to 56 CR2. But unlike the historical Type 56 there will be no integral Recce Sqn, in fact the whole Armoured Infantry Brigade has no Recce elements as currently planned, though I can see additional units such as the Light Cavalry having units attached, equipped with Jackals to provide a level of capability if a Brigade goes to war, or even one or two Ajax Troops from the Training formation being attached.

It does go to show how thread bear the Army has become, when its standing formations are not actually balanced or for for combat. Whilst this does not prevent the Army deploying heavy Battle Groups it does make the statement that it can deploy a true fighting division rather hollow.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: It does go to show how thread bear the Army has become, when its standing formations are not actually balanced or for for combat. Whilst this does not prevent the Army deploying heavy Battle Groups it does make the statement that it can deploy a true fighting division rather hollow.
Historically, how much combined arms have been present in brigade formations? Going back to the Second World War, brigades were generally homogeneous unit types and supporting arms came from division.

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 »

Yes, but in the past few decades the British Army has developed a doctrine of all arms battle groups all the way down to Company level. The Brigade is now the menu from which these are created, whereas in the days of BOAR this was done more at a Divisional level with Brigades swapping Regiments/Battalions and so on.

However with the Army 2020 Refined/Army 2025 both the Armoured Infantry And Mechanised Brigades are unbalanced and lack key integral formations and capabilities. The former lack any integral Recce component at all and the latter lacks integral Artillery. Where is this going to come from. The two Regiments of AS-90s are assigned to the Armoured Infantry and even if detached lack the mobility to keep up with the Mechanised formations. The range of the GMLRS allows it to provide a certain amount of cover but it will probably fall to one of the remaining Regiments equipped with 105mm Light Guns to provide support. This is totally inadequate especially in the weight of fire and flexibility and also very vulnerable to counter battery fire to say the least.

The Mechanised Brigades are also severely lacking in anti-tank fire power, with each brigade only having around 16 hand held Javelin ATGW launchers in this role plus the very short ranged NLAW also carried by the Infantry. As has been pointed out to me repeatedly, the CTA40 auto cannon on the Ajax is ineffective against MBTs.

So the new Mechanised Brigades will be able to deploy rapidly (sort of) but when they arrive they will be unable to effectively counter any opposing formations that contain MBTs and will be vulnerable to enemy Artillery fire. If they operate in a dispersed manner as is often mentioned, the inherent weakness of the Brigade is made even more apparent, with the phrase "Speed Bump" becoming more appropriate.

As for Divisional level assets, well what do we actually have left in the cupboard? Well we have the Army's two Air Defence Regiments which are useful and the ISTAR assets that have been built up over the past decades. There will still be limited Artillery, mainly the Single Regiment of GMLRS, and of course there will be additional logistics and admin units.

The Army will have a total of TWO Armoured Regiments moving forward. These are key to the ability of the Army to fight any sort of high intensity warfare and will remain the Army's most potent ground based anti-tank platforms, but only if the planned upgrade includes either the L44 or L55 variants of the German 120mm Smoothbore gun as well as an updated FCS. The only negative in this is the up front cost, but the Powers That Be must way this against that by doing so we will have access to far cheaper ammunition and be able to retain the CR2 in service well into the late 2030s if not longer. IF the right FCS and other systems are chosen the maintenance and future modifications will also be more cost effective if they are common with similar components used by others.

Compared to the investments being made in the Air Force and Navy, the funding needed to bring the Army's five frontline Brigades up to effective warfighting standard are relatively small. The foundations have been put in place and moderate additional funding would greatly increase the Army's capability. The MoD must avoid its historical approach to the Army, which has led to the current crisis of hollowed out unbalanced service. Programmes such as the recently announced FLSS should be killed off immediately and both the Air Force And Navy should be made to concentrate on their core capabilities only until the Army has been given the resources to bring it up to a standard that is fit for purpose.

The £200M possibly allocated to the FLSS would go along way to allow the CR2 CSP to be more comprehensive than currently envisioned. We do not need to just keep the CR2 going, we need to make them combat effective against any peer opponent.

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 »

I wouldn’t get hung up on what units are arranged into which peacetime unit. In the event of active deployment the units deployed will be taken from what is available. The strike concept is very weak in supporting fires at the moment, but consider that it will be supported by helicopter and fast jets, both of which operate powerful anti-tank weapons. Plus there is a requirement out at the moment for a new artillery piece that can support either strike or armoured formations.

Whinging about how the Air Force and the Navy have it better and should be punished for it won’t help, but perhaps the Army could look at why the senior and junior services have it better and consequently if they can achieve that themselves.

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

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

Post by whitelancer »

mr.fred wrote:Historically, how much combined arms have been present in brigade formations? Going back to the Second World War, brigades were generally homogeneous unit types and supporting arms came from division.
If we go back to BAOR the Divisions supplied Combat Support and Combat Service Support, to the brigades as required, So if we look at artillery the Division would have a Divisional Artillery Group. The Brigadier commanding the DAG would be the Divisional Commanders advisor on all matters artillery, including devising the Divisions fire support plan and allocating artillery as required. Normally each Brigade would have a Close Support Regiment allocated, with the CO being the brigades artillery advisor. Battery Commanders doing the same at Battle Group level and with FOOs being allocated to each Combat Team, (later Squadron and Company Groups). From this it looks like at each level their is dedicated artillery, this was not the case. As an example a BG or Brigade in reserve doesn't need artillery support, while a BG or Brigade in combat wants all the support it can get. So they may have anything from zero artillery to the entire DAG in support. The same goes for other support elements.
The above highlights the problem with using Brigades as your primary formation. To provide a similar level of support each brigade needs the full range of support elements that are normally provided at Divisional level, which considering our lack of support elements is a major problem.

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 »

Relying on helicopters and fast jets to off set the weaknesses of our ground formations is a big mistake, and it would come back to bite us in the arse if we ever go up against a peer opponent. The air above the ground battle will be contested at best by both opposition air and ground units, with the current and future SA-XX especially dangerous.

I understand the doctrine of forming Battle Groups form what is available and I am thinking about wartime operations rather than peace time. The problem is with only two Armoured Regiments, would we keep them in the Armoured Infantry Brigades to be used in Battle Groups composed of units from these formations or do we spread them even thinner by attaching squadrons or smaller units to Battel Groups composed of Mechanised Brigade units. If we are going to go even further and throw all four heavy and medium Brigades into he melting pot to create our Battel Groups how do we adjust out training etc. to allow these disparate formations to be used to operating together,

All five of the Army's combat Brigades are pretty hollow formations at present and will be more so in future as the integral Recce is removed from all units leaving the four Recce Regiments in the Mechanised Brigades, but these are not tasked with Recce as their primary role, rather they are to provide fire support to the Mechanised Infantry Battalions in their respective Brigades. The lack of organic Artillery in the Mechanised Brigades has been identified as a requirement but this has now been expanded into a programme to replace the bulk of the Army's tube Artillery. This means it is now a substantial programme rather then as small quick fix it should have been, and the Army's record at bring kit into service under large procurement programmes is not good. Instead we should have bought a Regiments worth of off the shelf wheeled 155mm platforms to re-equip one of the existing 105mm Light Gun Artillery Regiments using the much vaunted Transformational Fund, and then use the experience gained from operating such equipment to influence the much larger purchase to replace the AS-90s.

Also as a mater of urgency the Army need to purchase an off the shelf platform to give heavy and medium units their organic Recce back. We will need around 100 vehicles and if needed we could adapt out existing Foxhounds to the role, giving the a EO sensor turret, possible on a mast, and improved communications. If they could retain four dismounts as well it would give them greater flexibility.

How many and what type of units are held at Divisional and Brigade level needs to be heavily scrutinised. We need to ensure that we can effectively support any formations we operationally deploy up to a multiple Brigade deployment. This needs to cover logistics, ISTAR, Heavy indirect Fire support and so on. It is no use having highly mobile formations such as the planned Mechanised Infantry Battalions, if we do not have sufficient support assets available to keep them moving and supplied in stores, manpower and information. ISTAR needs to be deployed down to Company level as part of an overall secure network, the framework of which is on the way. We also need to be able to disrupt or even remove an opponent ISTAR capability n order to gain the imitative in manoeuvre operations, and reduce the effectiveness of hostile artillery and other supporting arms.

Returning to the CR2 though, we are in danger of becoming adverse to committing them to operations due to the small size of the fleet and lack of replacements etc. The small fleet size also means we are going to have to restrict mileage to reduce wear and tear even more, which will affect training. The procurement of a Sim-net, based on that operated by the US Army but being more versatile with each "Pod" being able to mimic multiple platforms, would allow units up to the size of a Battalion Battle Group to train effectively at less expanse, though this would require funding up front.

The planned CSP for the CR2 needs to be a comprehensive programme, effectively delivering a new platform to the Army. it systems need to be open architecture to allow the easy and constant updating of systems to keep them relevant and a programme to maintain these systems need to be put in place to prevent block obsolescence down the line Installing the German 120mm is vital to this as it ties us into the performance and other improvements that will be made in the future form various sources. I am sure there will be an argument made in the MoD that we only need to carry out the minimum modifications necessary to keep the CR2s running until a replacement can be found in the late 2020s, but unless our politicians have an improbable change of heart/brain funding is going to get tighter and tighter moving forward and there might never be sufficient funding to allow such a procurement.

Finally stating that the other two services have has the lion's share of funding for their major programmes is not whinging but a legitimate observation. Yes the Army Top Brass could have made netter use of what funding they had, but because it was so limited, a culture of over cautiousness has evolved where they are reluctant to commit to big programmes for fear of getting things wrong and not having the funds to correct the mistake. Instead they continue to run trial after trial, assessment after assessment trying to find the perfect solution. They know the capabilities they need but cannot identify the most effecting solution in many cases, often because there are multiple option available. But he Army needs to be more robust in fighting its corner when it come to dividing up the pie so to speak. It need to be more assertive as to what it needs and what equipment is required to meet said need. If it can do this a secure greater funding this should lessen the their cautions nature and speed up procurement of new equipment. Will this lead to less money for the other two services, possibly but there is wiggle room here if some of the programmes aimed at tasks outside our core defence needs as dialled back.

I realise I have strayed outside the CR2 thread quite a bit here so will continue my rants in the SDSR 2020 thread later.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:would we keep them in the Armoured Infantry Brigades to be used in Battle Groups composed of units from these formations or do we spread them even thinner by attaching squadrons
It will not be the first time if I say that we are on our way of having the Matilda infantry tank (again).
Lord Jim wrote:should have bought a Regiments worth of off the shelf wheeled 155mm platforms to re-equip one of the existing 105mm Light Gun Artillery Regiments using the much vaunted Transformational Fund
Nothing transformational in that (see other comment below)
Lord Jim wrote:ISTAR needs to be deployed down to Company level as part of an overall secure network, the framework of which is on the way.
What is on its way? The drones suitable for use at that level were withdrawn.
Lord Jim wrote: The procurement of a Sim-net, based on that operated by the US Army but being more versatile with each "Pod" being able to mimic multiple platforms, would allow units up to the size of a Battalion Battle Group to train effectively at less expanse, though this would require funding up front.
... that sounds more like a transformation funding item
Lord Jim wrote:they are reluctant to commit to big programmes for fear of getting things wrong and not having the funds to correct the mistake.
FRES was army's counterstrike to the two carriers and RAF's mega-Typhoon prgrms (with Dreadnoughts looming large on the horizon - even though they are meant to hide :) ) . "We will build 3000 of them"
Lord Jim wrote: will continue my rants in the SDSR 2020 thread later.
We have a army renewal thread, some somewhere between tanks and Defence & Security 'overarching thoughts' ... with the Williamson debacle the x-pull between 'fusion' and new hardware is making a comeback ' to the fore'
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)

CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
United Kingdom

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

Post by CameronPerson »

Nothing official released as yet but Drummond is usually well informed..


Post Reply