FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

[RetroSicotte]

FFS...

I know, I know, it's the usual pre-review "This awful thing could happen" reporting. But good grief. That this is even a vague option. Maybe they wanna go ask the Netherlands and Canada how they got on dropping them.

[military]

I cannot read the full article but 50 Apaches are not at all an equal contribution to two armoured infantry brigades, with several thousand vehicles of all sorts between them. Also, Russians have great short and medium run anti-air and so Apaches flying in close will be shot down.

Keeping the "recce" Ajax family of vehicles while dropping MBTs would be even sillier. No British vehicle would mount a weapon capable of damaging a Russian tank, of which there are thousands. Four regiments of tracked recce might even be more than in BOAR, where there two regiments as I recall.

[bobp]

Same story in Daily Mail here:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tanks.html

[Caribbean]

I think the only way that this could possibly be justified is by concentrating all the money saved by not going ahead with C2 and Warrior upgrades (if there is anything left after budget cuts) on Ajax and Boxer, to implement the missing large gun and mortar variants (plus CTA40 turret for Boxer). Then build new "medium armoured" brigades out of Ajax variants and the Strike brigades out of Boxer variants. That, plus updating the artillery, getting rid of a few light role battalions and equipping the remainder as protected mobility with substantial ATGM numbers might possibly work. No idea whether it would save large amounts of money, however.

Not my favourite solution, though!

[RetroSicotte]

Nah, the only thing Boris and co see is "omg money saved". They've been trying to do this sort of huge cut since they got into office. Hell they've been trying to do it since May got in, possibly even earlier if Hammond had gotten his way.

The idea of the Tories being a defence party is just laughable.

[RunningStrong]

I think the only way that this could possibly be justified is by concentrating all the money saved by not going ahead with C2 and Warrior upgrades (if there is anything left after budget cuts) on Ajax and Boxer, to implement the missing large gun and mortar variants (plus CTA40 turret for Boxer). Then build new "medium armoured" brigades out of Ajax variants and the Strike brigades out of Boxer variants. That, plus updating the artillery, getting rid of a few light role battalions and equipping the remainder as protected mobility with substantial ATGM numbers might possibly work. No idea whether it would save large amounts of money, however.

Not my favourite solution, though!

It wouldn't save any money doing it that way.

Put simply, they're intending to save money by not spending it on CR2. Spending it elsewhere doesn't help!

I'm not against scrapping CR2, but like you only if there was a huge investment elsewhere. There won't be, so the Army will have to cling on.

[Lord Jim]

Maybe someone should mention to Dominic and Boris that without an effective Army the UK will no longer be a global power.

[Caribbean]

Put simply, they're intending to save money by not spending it on CR2

Agreed, which is why the Warrior upgrade needs to be ditched as well (no point without C2) and the "Armoured Brigade" re-built around Ajax variants. I suspect that we won't need 122 command variants anymore - they could easily be changed to Ares APCs (maybe with a 30mm RWS on some) and some of the planned 245 turreted Ajax (since we would only need about half as many) could instead carry a 120mm turret. Coupled with a reduction in the overall numbers of the other variants, proportionate to maintaining a single Armoured Brigade, I would hope that it could be achieved for a similar budget to the current Ajax budget. It would also keep a core of troops trained in armour tactics etc.

Additional Boxer variants would probably involve new money, though, I grant you that, however once the Ajax CTA40 turret is in production, it should be a relatively simple exercise to design a Boxer module to carry it.

[The Armchair Soldier]

"UK military liaison officers have started floating proposal with Nato allies"

I'm sure all the Baltic states are thrilled by the idea.

Has to be bollocks.

[SW1]

Maybe someone should mention to Dominic and Boris that without an effective Army the UK will no longer be a global power.

Think Boris has already agreed and accepted this nearly sure he gave a speech at the start of summer where he said we are no long a superpower or something along those lines.

[dmereifield]

There's no way Boris will sign off on this, he doesn't want the bad PR, the electoral damage it will do with the working classes nor the damage it will do to his ambitions of building a global Britain

[RetroSicotte]

There's no way Boris will sign off on this, he doesn't want the bad PR, the electoral damage it will do with the working classes nor the damage it will do to his ambitions of building a global Britain

He absolutely will if he can. He and his cronies see the military as just a sponge for money that could be going in their mate's pockets instead.

[dmereifield]

There's no way Boris will sign off on this, he doesn't want the bad PR, the electoral damage it will do with the working classes nor the damage it will do to his ambitions of building a global Britain

He absolutely will if he can. He and his cronies see the military as just a sponge for money that could be going in their mate's pockets instead.

A somewhat cynical, and fortunately, incorrect view. He can't "get away with it", anyway

[inch]

Of course he will ,as time goes on people will realise gov a about as strong and as consistent as a chocolate fireguards on past choices ,they can't make a decision without it going wrong somehow and having to make an about turn, think time will prove me right again,next will be Brexit climb down with eu I'm suspecting might be proved wrong but I doubt it etc , don't get me wrong gov was the best choice out of the 3 in last election ie Corbyn Boris and the other one I can't remember now but don't expect a decision on the forces structure numbers and equipment levels or army tank, apv numbers that folks on here going to be happy with ,think I'm right in thinking the conservatives have cut forces more than any other party's so don't expect anything less ,that's what you get when people who know sod all about defence making the decisions , which is ok till it isn't in a time of crisis the weak countries get preyed upon as history would suggest

[SW1]

Though if he turns round and sells it as buying lots of boxers built in Telford against vehicles built it Spain or wherever he’ll have no problem selling it

[dmereifield]

Of course he will ,as time goes on people will realise gov a about as strong and as consistent as a chocolate fireguards on past choices ,they can't make a decision without it going wrong somehow and having to make an about turn, think time will prove me right again,next will be Brexit climb down with eu I'm suspecting might be proved wrong but I doubt it etc , don't get me wrong gov was the best choice out of the 3 in last election ie Corbyn Boris and the other one I can't remember now but don't expect a decision on the forces structure numbers and equipment levels or army tank, apv numbers that folks on here going to be happy with ,think I'm right in thinking the conservatives have cut forces more than any other party's so don't expect anything less ,that's what you get when people who know sod all about defence making the decisions , which is ok till it isn't in a time of crisis the weak countries get preyed upon as history would suggest

Concerns about numbers and obsolescence are genuine, concern that the whole tank force will be ditched is not

[J. Tattersall]

It's at times like this I think that we could finally take the opportunity to build a new Royal Yatch, then at least in subsequent defence reviews the press could spend its time obsessing about whether it should be cut or not !

[jedibeeftrix]

Are we getting to closer to the return of the square tank brigade, in the singular - in order that:

1. The Army can focus on Strike - maybe even look to stand up a third
2. We can still 'do our bit' for Article5 - with an Armoured brigade
3. By have a 2x Tank Regiments + 2x IFV Battalions still retain a useful critical mass of heavy metal - without it occupying too much of the Army structure/resources
4. Oh, and because we rarely use them, minimise the logistic/support cost by deploying them in hi/lo battlegroups (we all know we don't have enought HET's to move a useful portion of an Arm-Inf brigade anywhere)

I understand that Strike is not an independent strategy, and that co-use of Heavy Armour is integral to the concept...
... Well, we'd keep armour, it would just be in one brigade.

[Zero Gravitas]

Only guessing, but I suspect this cut really is on the table.

Cummings is still leading the review isn’t he? He thinks large parts of defence procurement are outdated.

I’m not sure what use 150 updated challengers would be. How many of those could we deploy and how long would it take them to get anywhere? If the Russians gamble the US is looking elsewhere at some point (an increasingly likely possibility) and send in a few thousand armoured vehicles through what’s-it-called gap, what use would 80 British tanks be arriving 3 weeks after the battle had been lost?

We’re not going to be doing any COIN style wars-of-choice for a generation - at least.

We won’t be deploying MBTs against the Chinese...

It’s politically ‘sellable’ if there is a clear tangible quid-pro-quo. Yes, we’re getting rid of the tanks but we are buying x more units of platform ‘y’.

‘Y’ could be RAF or RN too.

[Ron5]

It’s politically ‘sellable’ if there is a clear tangible quid-pro-quo. Yes, we’re getting rid of the tanks but we are buying x more units of platform ‘y’.

More like "yes, we are getting rid of the tanks but to be fair we are also cutting the Navy's frigate fleet & Marines and the RAF's Tranche 1 Typhoons".

[dmereifield]

Only guessing, but I suspect this cut really is on the table.

Cummings is still leading the review isn’t he? He thinks large parts of defence procurement are outdated.

I’m not sure what use 150 updated challengers would be. How many of those could we deploy and how long would it take them to get anywhere? If the Russians gamble the US is looking elsewhere at some point (an increasingly likely possibility) and send in a few thousand armoured vehicles through what’s-it-called gap, what use would 80 British tanks be arriving 3 weeks after the battle had been lost?

We’re not going to be doing any COIN style wars-of-choice for a generation - at least.

We won’t be deploying MBTs against the Chinese...

It’s politically ‘sellable’ if there is a clear tangible quid-pro-quo. Yes, we’re getting rid of the tanks but we are buying x more units of platform ‘y’.

‘Y’ could be RAF or RN too.

Your speculation that Cummings doesn't rank them highly in the review and would trade them off for enhanced spending elsewhere is probably true, but your conclusion that it is politically sellable (or that it even be worth the political cost) is not...hence, they won't be chopped

[Defiance]

People probably would have said the same thing about gapping carrier aviation, binning Harrier and gapping MPA capability at the time.

If they think the fallout is managable, they'll cut anything,

[dmereifield]

People probably would have said the same thing about gapping carrier aviation, binning Harrier and gapping MPA capability at the time.

If they think the fallout is managable, they'll cut anything,

Fair point. I don't think they think the fallout is manageable, or at least, that they think the cost of managing it is too much to bear

[Defiance]

Fair point. I don't think they think the fallout is manageable, or at least, that they think the cost of managing it is too much to bear

The annoying thing for me is that as a taxpayer I don't want CR2 binned but damn, I don't think I want things to keep going the way they were either. Army Command seem content to piss away horrendous amounts of money repeatedly with little or nothing to show for it.

[albedo]

I confess to knowing very little about Army structures and strategies. But could someone explain to me the sort of scenario in which these tanks might conceivably be used in future conflicts? I'm just struggling totally to imagine how the something the size and weight of say 100 of these machines can be transported to some distant battlefield and all in time for tea. Maybe there is a credible answer, but I'm finding it difficult to imagine.

Is it possible that the role of tanks, at least in a smallish army on an offshore island, has come to an end? Or to look at it another way: Since we're always likely to enter some future war in partnership with other nations, who may well be closer to the site of the action and/or posses much greater transport resources, why not expect then to provide the tank forces and we'll focus our own limited resources on equipment and expertise that can complement those of our partner nations?