FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

Lord Jim wrote: we are not going to be designing a successor are we?
Extraordinarily unlikely.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:Don't want to be negative, but I feel this program is a huge mistake.

"Competitive out to 2035" means that in practice the upgraded vehicle will be in service for a maximum of ten years, maybe less. The cost per unit is already comparable to buying a new platform off the shelf, which would have higher availability and lower support costs. And that is assuming everything goes right. In reality there is integration risk and the reality that you're increasing the base weight of a 20 year old platform by 20%. Something is going to pop.

And what's the upside? At best 150 upgraded vehicles, more likely less. There's not even an industrial benefit. To rebuild our AFV industry Telford should be focussed on building Boxer efficiently, not messing around with "Land-Nimrod"
I would challenge three of the claims here: firstly that a new buy of a comparable quality tank would be cheaper, secondly that Challenger 3 will be 20% heavier and thirdly, there will be no UK industrial benefit to the Challenger 3 program. Have you any data to back your claims?

I do agree that RBSL's focus should be on building Boxer efficiently, after all that was reported to be the primary cause of the company's creation.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: we are not going to be designing a successor are we?
Extraordinarily unlikely.
I would speculate tho, that RBSL makes the likelihood of a joint UK/German development effort more likely and given Rheinmetall's history of Leo upgrades may winkle out another partner or two. Long time away tho. Maybe a better bet would be the UK enjoying/participating in, future ammo development streams.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Ron5 wrote:
SD67 wrote:Don't want to be negative, but I feel this program is a huge mistake.

"Competitive out to 2035" means that in practice the upgraded vehicle will be in service for a maximum of ten years, maybe less. The cost per unit is already comparable to buying a new platform off the shelf, which would have higher availability and lower support costs. And that is assuming everything goes right. In reality there is integration risk and the reality that you're increasing the base weight of a 20 year old platform by 20%. Something is going to pop.

And what's the upside? At best 150 upgraded vehicles, more likely less. There's not even an industrial benefit. To rebuild our AFV industry Telford should be focussed on building Boxer efficiently, not messing around with "Land-Nimrod"
I would challenge three of the claims here: firstly that a new buy of a comparable quality tank would be cheaper, secondly that Challenger 3 will be 20% heavier and thirdly, there will be no UK industrial benefit to the Challenger 3 program. Have you any data to back your claims?

I do agree that RBSL's focus should be on building Boxer efficiently, after all that was reported to be the primary cause of the company's creation.
Latest open source price I for M1A2C is USD 1.5 Billion for 135 units, contract signed 2017, ie £8.5million per unit at current exchange rates.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... anks-66061

Challenger LEP budget is unknown as it does not currently exist. But widespread speculation is £1 billion+ for 148 units, which is consistent with the £46 already awarded to the two consortia (5% pre-bid spend on risk reduction). Nicholas Drummond on his excellent blog has suggested it will end up at around £8 million per unit minimum (assuming no Nimrod-esque integration issues....).

But Project Accounting 101 - the cost is the price per unit of output not per platform. Challenger LEP buys us 10 years of capability, tops vs 20-30 for a new platform. MOD stated requirement is "preserve ability out to 2035". One has to also assume lower availability and higher cost of maintenance during this period as it would be an ageing orphan product.

Industrial benefit? Well the proposed drivetrain turret and gun are all made in Germany. Exports and follow on orders are impossible as it's an upgrade. Very limited IMHO

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

SD67 wrote:Latest open source price I for M1A2C is USD 1.5 Billion for 135 units, contract signed 2017, ie £8.5million per unit at current exchange rates.
What's included in that £8.5m? Guns, Radios, engines, tracks, VAT? US contracts often miss those things out.
SD67 wrote:Challenger LEP budget is unknown as it does not currently exist. But widespread speculation is £1 billion+ for 148 units, which is consistent with the £46 already awarded to the two consortia (5% pre-bid spend on risk reduction). Nicholas Drummond on his excellent blog has suggested it will end up at around £8 million per unit minimum (assuming no Nimrod-esque integration issues....).
So £7m or higher apiece.
SD67 wrote:But Project Accounting 101 - the cost is the price per unit of output not per platform. Challenger LEP buys us 10 years of capability, tops vs 20-30 for a new platform. MOD stated requirement is "preserve ability out to 2035". One has to also assume lower availability and higher cost of maintenance during this period as it would be an ageing orphan product.
I think it more likely that any platform will be obsolescing and in need of upgrade in 10-15 years, whether its based on the 25 year-old Challenger 2 chassis or the 40-year-old Abrams chassis.

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 »

SD67 wrote:Latest open source price I for M1A2C is USD 1.5 Billion for 135 units, contract signed 2017, ie £8.5million per unit at current exchange rates.

Challenger LEP budget is unknown as it does not currently exist. But widespread speculation is £1 billion+ for 148 units, which is consistent with the £46 already awarded to the two consortia (5% pre-bid spend on risk reduction). Nicholas Drummond on his excellent blog has suggested it will end up at around £8 million per unit minimum (assuming no Nimrod-esque integration issues....).
This is an objectively inaccurate comparison.

US contract lists do not include a lot of things, as Mr Fred mentions. Thus this number is not applicable for a whole cost. The UK buying 150-200 M1A2C/Ds would cost a whole lot more than the US one. They'd have to buy a complete new spare parts inventory, complete new trainer software, complete new training facilities, complete new fuel supply, complete new logistics support line, complete new C4I integration, complete new ITAR contracts, complete new training manuals (these are not as cheap as it sounds) along with the army needing to completely retrain, reintegrate, and relearn an entire platform, costing untold millions extra in additional sessions, and a period of inexperience.

Challenger 2 LEP avoids so much of that, so simply using how it is to put an M1 into the US Army is a very inaccurate comparison. For example, notice how Taiwan is paying the equivalent of $18.5m per tank to buy the vehicle fresh once the rest of the contract's non-per-unit amount is factored in. $2b for 108 tanks. And those aren't even the top end version.
Challenger LEP buys us 10 years of capability, tops vs 20-30 for a new platform.
Objectively incorrect. A Challenger 2 with new armour, 1,650hp engine, Orion sight, modern FCS, and an L55A1 goes a hell of a lot further than 2035. You are misreading their requirement. They don't mean they expect it to only last until then. They mean that is a required target. No military ever said they only want something to go "until just" outside of specific interim measures, which this certainly is not. Note how long the M1 and Leo 2 have served. Look long the T-72 has served. Or how long the Leclerc will have served.
Industrial benefit? Well the proposed drivetrain turret and gun are all made in Germany. Exports and follow on orders are impossible as it's an upgrade. Very limited IMHO
As opposed to buying someone else's tank and getting absolutely nothing of all of the above.

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 »

The Challenger 2 LEP will give us an effective platform that will serve us well until the next generation of MBTs comes on line in the latter part of the 2030s. Buying anything new instead of the CR2 LEP would give us a platform that would probably only be effective over the same period and require either a major capability upgrade or replacement during the same timeframe.

I am only disappointed that we are only planning to produce enough modernised platforms for two Regiment, BATUS and a small pool of attrition replacements. I would have preferred us to retain three Regiments, each with three Squadrons, with maybe the third Squadron in each manned with the use of reservists. That would have the same number of regular personnel as just the two four Squadron Regiments, but greater capacity in a major conflict.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Well yes as CR2 is long out of production we don't have the option of increasing numbers either now or in the future, that's another mark against it.

With a new turret, gun, drivetrain and electronics architecture I question the relevance of much of the current CR2 parts inventory. Sourcing spares for an out of production orphan platform which has only one operator vs pooling with the US Army and a few other close allies - I'm guessing the latter will be a tad cheaper.

And this all assumes that CR2 is actually deliverable. The program has been going a long time, refurbing old kit is always trickier than it seems and with the formation of RBSL there's only one bidder. IMHO if it really is that important to stay in the heavy tank business we should do it properly, build a new chassis as well and call it Challenger 3.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

But the carry over parts are the limiting factor. There is such a thing as physical wear and tear which is presumably why CR2 is being fleet-managed now.

We will have 148 upgraded CR2s, tops. T-72 and M-1 were built in their thousands, I doubt there is a physical early-build M1 that is still in service today - they're all parked up in the desert. Leclerc didn't go out of production until 2008 hasn't been worked as hard as CR2 and it's replacement is pencilled in for 2035.

Edit by RS - My sincerest apologies, I edited instead of quoted your post, I've left what I can here, I think it's mostly still your content.

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

SD67 wrote:IMHO if it really is that important to stay in the heavy tank business we should do it properly, build a new chassis as well and call it Challenger 3.
The trouble with a new build is that we don't really have the time to do it. The Challenger 2 needs obsolescence management/upgrading now, if not sooner. What an obsolescence management will do is give you time to look at the replacement as a wholly new thing rather than a warmed over 1970's design. Also upgrading means that you can spread the cost out a bit. You can introduce the new turret and gun, along with spares, while keeping the old drivetrain. Then you can start changing the drivetrain. Spreading the cost out a bit.

While Cr2 soldiers on, we could start looking at a replacement for the armoured battlegroup vehicles - MBT, IFV, Engineering, recovery, logistics vehicles with an eye to what is going to be the working environment in twenty years' time.
SD67 wrote:Sourcing spares for an out of production orphan platform which has only one operator vs pooling with the US Army and a few other close allies - I'm guessing the latter will be a tad cheaper.
Fractionally, perhaps? Not as much as you might think though.
But who else are you counting as "a few other close allies"? Most users of the M1 have their own spec vehicle on their own upgrade path. The Aussies, for example, have 60-odd Abrams that they are looking at upgrading (10-15 years after initial procurement) and have budgeted 750mn - 1bn AUD (£7-9mn each-ish) to do so. (Land 907 phase 2).
Other than that, wiki tells me that Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Morocco operate a couple of hundred Abrams (each to a different spec) each (though Egypt has over a thousand of its version). Not sure if I'd class any of those as being particularly close, reliable allies.
Granted the drive train is probably quite similar across all of those, but that's the (relatively) cheap stuff anyway.

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 »

SD67 wrote:But the carry over parts are the limiting factor. There is such a thing as physical wear and tear which is presumably why CR2 is being fleet-managed now.

We will have 148 upgraded CR2s, tops. T-72 and M-1 were built in their thousands, I doubt there is a physical early-build M1 that is still in service today - they're all parked up in the desert. Leclerc didn't go out of production until 2008 hasn't been worked as hard as CR2 and it's replacement is pencilled in for 2035.
Challenger 2 was finished deliveries in 2002, a mere 17/18 years ago for the youngest of the fleet that will undoubtedly comprise the upgraded ones. Modern tank designs built in the late 90's to early 2000's have a very different standard of lasting time to them than ones built in the 70's, especially given spares were built for some time after that.

Given most of the vehicle's wearable complex components are being completely replaced (turret, electronics, sights, and main drive comprise the biggest elements), this won't really be an issue. Things like tracks, roadwheels, return rollers, sideskirts, suspension components, stuff likely to stay the same, those are easy game to replace and restock.

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 »

If we wanted a new build MBT that would be complimentary to our allies we would be looking at the Leopard 2A7 rather then the Abrams, as this has or is becoming the standard European NATO MBT.

We have enough Challenger 2s to equip three full Regiments if we decided to, but the die has been cast, so we will only get the two equipped with the CR2 LEP. The Challenger2 will do a good job, the issues are going to be with how the rest of each Armoured Infantry Brigade is organised and equipped. At present each Brigade will only comprise of one Armoured and two Armoured Infantry units, with no recce and probably no dedicated Artillery as the two AS-90 and one GMLRS Regiments are probably going to be held centrally to support both these formations and the two "Strike" Brigades. The Heavy Protected Mobility Infantry Battalions have no place either unless they are re-equipped with Boxer APCs etc..

This is why to be effective, we need to deploy packages of one Armoured Infantry and One "Strike" Brigade to have a balanced force under the current planned organisation and even that is arguably not sufficient as the "Strike" Brigades are also inadequately equipped and organised to carry out the role intended.

But back to topic, the Challenger 2 will be more than adequate a MBT to last until the next generation appears. We still have skills and know how to offer any joint MBT programme with the Germans and other nations, and possible the Telford plant could become one of its production centres if it is not churning our Boxers still for the British Army and other nations. Joint programmes are going to be the future as the British Army is too small a customer to really support bespoke equipment any more. Yes we can integrate some UK only equipment, but not to a level that the platform diverges too far from the baseline model.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

SD67 wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
SD67 wrote:Don't want to be negative, but I feel this program is a huge mistake.

"Competitive out to 2035" means that in practice the upgraded vehicle will be in service for a maximum of ten years, maybe less. The cost per unit is already comparable to buying a new platform off the shelf, which would have higher availability and lower support costs. And that is assuming everything goes right. In reality there is integration risk and the reality that you're increasing the base weight of a 20 year old platform by 20%. Something is going to pop.

And what's the upside? At best 150 upgraded vehicles, more likely less. There's not even an industrial benefit. To rebuild our AFV industry Telford should be focussed on building Boxer efficiently, not messing around with "Land-Nimrod"
I would challenge three of the claims here: firstly that a new buy of a comparable quality tank would be cheaper, secondly that Challenger 3 will be 20% heavier and thirdly, there will be no UK industrial benefit to the Challenger 3 program. Have you any data to back your claims?

I do agree that RBSL's focus should be on building Boxer efficiently, after all that was reported to be the primary cause of the company's creation.
Latest open source price I for M1A2C is USD 1.5 Billion for 135 units, contract signed 2017, ie £8.5million per unit at current exchange rates.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/ ... anks-66061

Challenger LEP budget is unknown as it does not currently exist. But widespread speculation is £1 billion+ for 148 units, which is consistent with the £46 already awarded to the two consortia (5% pre-bid spend on risk reduction). Nicholas Drummond on his excellent blog has suggested it will end up at around £8 million per unit minimum (assuming no Nimrod-esque integration issues....).

But Project Accounting 101 - the cost is the price per unit of output not per platform. Challenger LEP buys us 10 years of capability, tops vs 20-30 for a new platform. MOD stated requirement is "preserve ability out to 2035". One has to also assume lower availability and higher cost of maintenance during this period as it would be an ageing orphan product.

Industrial benefit? Well the proposed drivetrain turret and gun are all made in Germany. Exports and follow on orders are impossible as it's an upgrade. Very limited IMHO
Thanks for responding so well to my challenge. All your questions are questions that should be asked and answered and hopefully they have been or will be in the dim lit corridors of power.

I'd just like to touch on a couple points that haven't been addressed by others: I find Nicholas Drummond an odd mixture, sometimes he says or writes things that are profoundly stupid. Mostly about military matters other than army but not always. But he does stick up for the forces so not a bad influence(r).

I think the LEP work of taking the legacy tanks, stripping them down, doing the polishing/refurbishing/parts replacement then fitting of new empty turrets and finishing with replacing old kit & new, plus testing of same will all be done in the UK by British workers. That's a significant piece of work. Engineer challenges will emerge along the way to be fixed by UK engineers. So, yes UK industrial benefit.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

If 150 Challenger 3's are acquired (the current favorite number) and that only allows 2 regiments to be equipped, how many would be required to enable 3 regiments?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

There's a shared assumption in the past few comments that the drive train will be replaced with German products. I think that unlikely.

My understanding is that drive train improvements are not part of LEP and that there is a separate program that is looking at that but with a far lower expectation and little funding. More in line with a general tuning exercise to gain efficiencies rather than looking at wholesale replacement. And up-rated Challenger powerpacks and transmissions can be bought from the commercial market.

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 »

A total of 168 would equip three Regiments, but that would leave BATUS using existing spec CR2s and leave no attrition replacement. In addition there would need to be 12 Challenger Recovery and Repair Vehicles which will need some improvements made to them.

If the existing Power Train can be fettled to improve reliability, power and reduce obsolescence for example then that should be enough. There are already a few new bits of kit going on the CR2 like a new thermal camera for the main gunnery sight, the contract for which was signed last month.

Like so many things a lot is going to depend on the next SDSR and CSR as well as the Army sitting down and prioritising its current equipment programmes. The Army is going to have to make a strong case that it need to recapitalise its AFV fleet as a matter of the greatest urgency and cannot delay or reduce the number of vehicles it needs. It must make the point that vehicles like the CR2, Warrior and FV432 series are no longer really viable in any peer conflict and are becoming increasing more expensive to operate whilst becoming increasingly less effective. They must get the Government and Treasury to realise that the money spent on equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan took money away from many key programmes and that equipment is on the whole not relevant in high intensity operations. Basically the Army lost over ten years of its AFV programme and this has meant that funding needs to be input to correct the situation. In the grand scheme of things the amount required over the next five years is not that great, roughly 5% of the defence Budget would cover most of the |Army's urgent AFV procurement and upgrade programmes. But the Army and DE&S must get its act together as if they do manage to get the resources as they will be under severe scrutiny with little or no room for any over runs in time and cost.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:If 150 Challenger 3's are acquired (the current favorite number) and that only allows 2 regiments to be equipped, how many would be required to enable 3 regiments?
Around 206 (3 x 56 plus the 38 extras implied by the 150 figure). If the extras were also increased pro-rata, then add another 50% to the extras, so another 19 for a total of 225 - enough for four full regiments. Only another £600m needed - what can we cancel instead :twisted:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:A total of 168 would equip three Regiments, but that would leave BATUS using existing spec CR2s and leave no attrition replacement. In addition there would need to be 12 Challenger Recovery and Repair Vehicles which will need some improvements made to them.

If the existing Power Train can be fettled to improve reliability, power and reduce obsolescence for example then that should be enough. There are already a few new bits of kit going on the CR2 like a new thermal camera for the main gunnery sight, the contract for which was signed last month.

Like so many things a lot is going to depend on the next SDSR and CSR as well as the Army sitting down and prioritising its current equipment programmes. The Army is going to have to make a strong case that it need to recapitalise its AFV fleet as a matter of the greatest urgency and cannot delay or reduce the number of vehicles it needs. It must make the point that vehicles like the CR2, Warrior and FV432 series are no longer really viable in any peer conflict and are becoming increasing more expensive to operate whilst becoming increasingly less effective. They must get the Government and Treasury to realise that the money spent on equipment for Iraq and Afghanistan took money away from many key programmes and that equipment is on the whole not relevant in high intensity operations. Basically the Army lost over ten years of its AFV programme and this has meant that funding needs to be input to correct the situation. In the grand scheme of things the amount required over the next five years is not that great, roughly 5% of the defence Budget would cover most of the |Army's urgent AFV procurement and upgrade programmes. But the Army and DE&S must get its act together as if they do manage to get the resources as they will be under severe scrutiny with little or no room for any over runs in time and cost.
I learned a new word today: "fettled" Google didn't help much with meaning but context did :D

Personally I think LEP is SDSR proof because it's past the the buy decision, its now down to how much to spend. Other programs like WSCP, not so much.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Caribbean wrote:
Ron5 wrote:If 150 Challenger 3's are acquired (the current favorite number) and that only allows 2 regiments to be equipped, how many would be required to enable 3 regiments?
Around 206 (3 x 56 plus the 38 extras implied by the 150 figure). If the extras were also increased pro-rata, then add another 50% to the extras, so another 19 for a total of 225 - enough for four full regiments. Only another £600m needed - what can we cancel instead :twisted:
Thanks. I had assumed the extras were for BATUS and training & therefore would not need to be pro-rated. Any idea if there are 206 Challenger 2's available in good enough condition to upgrade?

150 to 200 would take the bill from maybe 1 bill to 1.3 bill. Shoot, what else can you buy for 300m? hardly anything in military terms :D

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 »

Ron5 wrote: Any idea if there are 206 Challenger 2's available in good enough condition to upgrade?

150 to 200 would take the bill from maybe 1 bill to 1.3 bill. Shoot, what else can you buy for 300m? hardly anything in military terms
Very true.

But prgrms that have been budgeted with 'abt' a billion do not have a good record:
- Warrior (all 600 in different versions; not just the fightability half of that surviving to date - now costing anything between 1.3 and 1.8 bn; that's what the prolonged trials are about)
- FSS part of MARS: ohh, we can only get two, not three, for that... let's rethink

Devil's Advocate steps into the ring: expand the Reserves component and change the concept from replacement crews (with tanks?) to a full rgmnt, as in numbers, but go against the deployment 'orthodoxy' and plan for their use in a penny-packeted way, as infantry support tanks - only the main gunnery sight upgraded, and may be APS added later
- a squadron-wise way of fielding/ operating
- thus not relying on the fast punch of the armoured fist
- makes them more likely targets for 'sniping' by ATGWs; hence the need for APS
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 »

In other words a total mess, with no cohesive plan, no account taken of likely threats, the only concern is to balance the treasury's accounting spreadsheets. If things go that way we are out of the peer warfighting club permanently, but then again as long as the balloon doesn't go up the Politicians will be fine. There is a trend developing in Westminster after the 2010 SDSR. The Government took a gamble then on capability and capacity and got away with it. Now they seem to be happy to take bigger and bigger gambles with all aspects of security except counter terrorism as the last has political implications. All other defence related issues don't.

So the Army becomes a reserve force except for the SF, Paras and those in nice red uniforms and tall bearskins.. And those reserves are un usable against anyone who might shoot back because they do not have the right equipment or in the right quantities. No problem we are an Island so are suitably protected by out Navy and Air Force. Now what about the Governments global influence strategy, well we still have the Navy.

Sorry for the rant, but if that "Devil's advocate", scenario actually occurs it is the end of the Army. Any Government that goes down that route is going to have a very hard time as leaks form Whitehall will become a torrent. And I will be leaving the Country to live elsewhere.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:But prgrms that have been budgeted with 'abt' a billion do not have a good record:
Don't forget SR in SDSR stands for spending review. Budgets are up for grabs :D

As for the UK reserves getting tanks, God forbid!!!

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 »

Ron5 wrote:As for the UK reserves getting tanks, God forbid!!!
Well I managed to have a go at driving a CR1 back in the 1980s and I was a civie. It was off road and great fun. It would sure help recruitment allowing the reserves to do so though the bill for damage repair and compensation of collisions may make it non cost effective.

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: if that "Devil's advocate", scenario actually occurs it is the end of the Army. Any Government that goes down that route is going to have a very hard time as leaks form Whitehall will become a torrent. And I will be leaving the Country to live elsewhere.
Did you already book the flight when going over to the MRB structure was the official :D plan?
- even here some folks were defending it as "good"
- and every single tank would have been in an infantry support role. After all, Rommel's finished work is about "Infanterie greift an!" though the son did put together the notes and manuscripts for the 2nd(WW) edition about armour tactics
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Did you already book the flight when going over to the MRB structure was the official plan?
No but I went to numerous Travel Agents and made enquiries to ensure I had some solid options. Malta won as I was born there, with the Netherlands a close second as I lived there for five years.

Post Reply