FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

Nicholas Drummond apparently was in Tidworth yesterday for an industry briefing and says report is incorrect. MOD Major General Chris Tickell, Director of Capability says "beginning of 2020" and programme continues to aim for FOC by 2025.

Early 2020 arguably is a delay in itself, but much smaller. To be fair, the MOD did not communicate the exact Main Gate date. When the Senior Responsible Owner was appointed, the letter said "Q2 2019, set conditions for successful achievement of Main Gate". Which is as ambiguous as it can be, and very much open-ended. Nothing in the document about when exactly MG is to be cleared.
If going to beginning of 2020 is part of the price to pay for going with the new turret and smoothbore gun, it can be paid with a smile. Let's hope it stays so, though...

If we are to believe SOLDIER magazine, the thermal imager is being replaced already with a more adequate camera as an interim measure, in the meanwhile.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Got the chance to be up close with one, and stand up on the turret to look down into one at Tankfest (also saw Ares and Warrior 2, both look pretty impressive, got inside the troop compartment of the latter).

Quite a thing. Reminds you of the psychological shock of such massive vehicles to see moving around. It's an 'x factor' you can't put into direct words.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

If you got into an FV520 you can finally answer on the number of seats. Is it 6 or 7, now?
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

So does FOC in 2025 mean we will at least have the two frontline Armoured Regiments equipped with the Challenger 2 mod. or is that when deliveries are die to start. However if the upgrade is a substantial as it could be we will be ending up with basically new, up to date MBTs which would be worth the wait. I wonder if the platforms over in Canada will also be upgraded? Alternatively they could be given an upgrade to mimic the new capabilities for the purposes of exercise use I suppose.

I have never got really up close and personnel to a Challenger 2 though I did so with the Challengers of the 2nd RTR just after they received them in North Germany back in the 1980s. I got to drive in one, was shown how to carry out the various roles from Driver to Gunner and has a few goes in the Gunnery Simulator. It was a really serious piece of kit. One of the then Hussars Regiments was the second Armoured component of the Battlegroup and the RTR to great joy at overtaking their Chieftains whilst the former were in reverse and the latter going forward. Hearing the Dawn Chorus of dozens of Challengers start up engines in the morning was quiet something.

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

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

Post by SKB »


User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

So does FOC in 2025 mean we will at least have the two frontline Armoured Regiments equipped with the Challenger 2 mod.
FOC means regiments being operational, if not deliveries being completed.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Thanks, I thought it did by meaning "Full Operational Capability", but wasn't 100% sure.

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 »

So thinking about it the Army/MoD is going to run a programme that will deliver a fleet of vehicles in the space of just over five years! That will be a change from the usual.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

Well, in theory the MIV should be quicker, considering the numbers involved, since the first brigade is supposed to be outfitted by 2023. The contract should come before year's end... and considering this is a DSEI year, you'd expect an announcement right there and then.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Gabriele wrote:If you got into an FV520 you can finally answer on the number of seats. Is it 6 or 7, now?
Unless one was hidden behind the...let's just say the rather "ample sized" man sitting near the turret basket one my turn in, I saw six seats. However both their board and the rep informed me that it takes 7 people if they aren't carrying too much with them.

I know, clear as bloody mud about what they're doing.

In direct terms however he did say "Yes 7, but in practical terms with modern kit and big guys in plate, 6." How similar this is to the current Warrior is unknown.

That SAID, I got photographic proof from their board that Ares can fit 7 men + 2 crew, not just 3+2 men as thought before. It's a difference in versions. Can post when home (in that topic).

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

The WARRIOR pre-upgrade has 3 2-man benches and a single small seat which, as far as i know, is right on top of the CBRN toilet.
In practice the Army seems to have set the armoured infantry section at 6, and that seems reasonable. Can imagine it is a rather tight fit already.

Interesting about ARES, too. I'm not surprised, per se. I wonder whether they are procuring both types of internal setup, and what the split is between the two sub-variants. Look forwards to the photos.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Gabriele wrote:The WARRIOR pre-upgrade has 3 2-man benches and a single small seat which, as far as i know, is right on top of the CBRN toilet.
In practice the Army seems to have set the armoured infantry section at 6, and that seems reasonable. Can imagine it is a rather tight fit already.

Interesting about ARES, too. I'm not surprised, per se. I wonder whether they are procuring both types of internal setup, and what the split is between the two sub-variants. Look forwards to the photos.
It could very well have been hiding behind other people if it's a small one. As you can imagine at a 9000 people event it's pretty busy when one lets people into vehicles.

Will post the pics soon. Watch for the Warrior/Ajax threads later on tonight.


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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

RetroSicotte wrote: That SAID, I got photographic proof from their board that Ares can fit 7 men + 2 crew, not just 3+2 men as thought before. It's a difference in versions. Can post when home (in that topic).
ARES is definitely 4+2. With 3 PAX on the side and 1 PAX taking the Tac Cmdr position.

You can definitely get more seats in there, but at the sacrifice of stowage that MOD wants.

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:ARES is definitely 4+2. With 3 PAX on the side and 1 PAX taking the Tac Cmdr position.
Well, the Army who uses it says 7 and explicitly state that it's 7 on the current version they have, and 3-4 on a separate version in the family.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

RetroSicotte wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:ARES is definitely 4+2. With 3 PAX on the side and 1 PAX taking the Tac Cmdr position.
Well, the Army who uses it says 7 and explicitly state that it's 7 on the current version they have, and 3-4 on a separate version in the family.
There is strictly, 100%, not a 7 PAX version in the AJAX family for UK.

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:
RetroSicotte wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:ARES is definitely 4+2. With 3 PAX on the side and 1 PAX taking the Tac Cmdr position.
Well, the Army who uses it says 7 and explicitly state that it's 7 on the current version they have, and 3-4 on a separate version in the family.
There is strictly, 100%, not a 7 PAX version in the AJAX family for UK.
Apparently the British Army, who own the vehicle, disagree.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

RetroSicotte wrote: Apparently the British Army, who own the vehicle, disagree.
The British Army don't own any yet ;)

User avatar
Jensy
Senior Member
Posts: 1049
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jensy »

Folks genuine question here, from someone who appreciates but doesn't really know armoured vehicles.

With all the talk about Challenger 2 updates or potential replacements, why is the Israeli Merkava never proposed? It's obviously a very formidable and modern MBT, with the latest active protection.

We buy a lot of Israeli equipment, why not buy the rights to build a tank that's family design is ironically descended from British origins (the Chieftain deal that was never delivered)?

Jensy

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 one thing for starter, Money, the Merkava is a very expensive weapons system and we are struggling to simply fund the CEP for the CR2. Also the Merkava is really designed for Israel's own requirements. Quite a few countries have looked at the Merkava over the years when looking to replace the old platforms and it has never been chosen by any of them to the best of my knowledge.

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:
RetroSicotte wrote: Apparently the British Army, who own the vehicle, disagree.
The British Army don't own any yet ;)
The men of the British Army I spoke to face to face who drove the vehicle itself in, who've been working as its crew for a few months, make a pretty convincing point that yes, they do know their own vehicle. :roll:

https://defence-blog.com/army/first-two ... -army.html

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 »

Jensy wrote:Folks genuine question here, from someone who appreciates but doesn't really know armoured vehicles.

With all the talk about Challenger 2 updates or potential replacements, why is the Israeli Merkava never proposed? It's obviously a very formidable and modern MBT, with the latest active protection.

We buy a lot of Israeli equipment, why not buy the rights to build a tank that's family design is ironically descended from British origins (the Chieftain deal that was never delivered)?

Jensy
As Jim put, it's mostly because it's specialised for their role. The Merkava is advanced and potent, but designed entirely around Israel's needs, that doesn't always match up to what others need. For example, it weighs 65 tonnes, that's even heavier than the already very heavy Challenger 2.

It's also very VERY expensive as it comes from a single source line from a small country. The Israelis upgrade constantly, so the Merk as you see it in their army is far above the same price as the "baseline" one.

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:The men of the British Army I spoke to face to face who drove the vehicle itself in, who've been working as its crew for a few months, make a pretty convincing point that yes, they do know their own vehicle. https://defence-blog.com/army/first-two ... -army.html
Were those two transporter the type we have leased to move medium and lighter platforms? Having sufficient numbers of such transporters was highlighted by RUSI as vital for the "Strike" Brigade(s) to be able to deploy as planned.

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 »

Couldn't say.

Also reminds me I forgot to get those photos. Someone ping me on PM to post em if I forget again. :D

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 »

Here's another new toy from Rheinmetall that would be good for the Challenger 2. Having the Launcher above the gun it seems, is a bit novel.

Post Reply