FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

[Ron5]

There's been a surprising amount of bullshit posted in the last page and a half since I last posted.

No part of Bae has not been sold to the Germans. Bae and Rheinmetall have formed a UK joint venture company. Most but not all of Bae Land operations (CTA, gun and ammunition manufacture have been excluded) and all of Rhienmetall UK operations have been merged. Rheinmetall is the majority stockholder having (I think) 55% of the shares. Think of it as comparable to MBDA but with two partners and being based in the UK.

I understand that it was Bae that reached out to Rheinmetall because Bae wanted partners to help build Boxer at its UK facilities.

Regarding Challenger LEP. The MoD has two identical contracts with Bae and Rheinmetal that were signed about two years ago for a two year assessment. The MoD gave both companies a bag of gold and two Challengers each to engineer and ground rules to follow.

Bae showed their Black Night Challenger 2, one of their contract vehicles, at the end of 2018. They called it an engineering test bed, not a prototype of Challenger 2 LEP, and had used some of their own money to tart it up with things outside of LEP, like an Iron Fist APS. Most of the LEP items were internal so out of sight including the rearrangement of equipment within the turret that would enable a retrofit of a 120mm smooth bore gun. Such a gun was not fitted but thanks to experience gained from an earlier program Bae are aware of the guns requirements. Which model of smooth bore is not known by me.

At DSEI 2019, the first exhibition after the joint venture was formed, RBSL (the name of the new company) displayed and talked about the Rheinmetall contract vehicle modified under the LEP contract. In contrast to Black Knight, it was described as a prototype. It had a Challenger 1 hull (not Challenger 2) and despite Mr Fred's misgivings, a brand new turret. Some thought it was a Leo turret but an RBSL spokesman denied this and said the turret was new for LEP. It mounted the latest and greatest L55 smooth bore gun and was displayed with DM11 programmable ammunition which led many to claim this version of Challenger to be (once again) the best tank in the world. The turret had simple flat plate armor so presumably there would be an opportunity for the unique "magic" UK only armor to be fitted without too much trouble.

The MoD is due, maybe overdue, to make a decision of which bid to select: Bae's I would guess is a shed load cheaper but would it last long enough before another LEP is needed? RBSL isn't saying anything I can find, neither is the MoD. Maybe they are waiting for the miserable SDSR to gotten out of the way. Personally, I am very taken with the following RBSL poster ....

[Ron5]

[Lord Jim]

Yes BAe had sold/given away its UK based AFV operation but remember BAe own United Defence in the US, you know the company that makes the Bradley and Paladin for example.

If the MoD want the Challenger 2 to be a competitive MBT out to 2035 or later it is going to have to spend a lot more cash than just a tune up would cost. A new gun is all but mandatory, unless we want to have a bespoke production line for rounds that have lost much of their effectiveness against peer opposition. As for which gun well your choice is basically Rheinmetall's product or a licensed variant.

Like so many things the CR2 LEP has built up a bow wave of essential capabilities that both it and the other new families of AFVs planned to be introduced in to service with the British Army. Plans as they stand are only a half baked solution to issues that have been left for far too long.

Ajax only got going because the Army was desperate and feared looing like a bunch of total idiots if they didn't push it into production, then try to find a role for it.

Warrior and the mythical BASV programmes have been so slow they have become stealthy. Both should have been in full service by now or cancelled, but instead the programme has been drawn out bringing all the negative issues that entails.

Yes we finally have Boxer but MIV should have been delivered over a decade ago under FRES(UV). But the variants on order will not allow the Army to form balanced and capable Mechanised Infantry Battalions, and even though the Army is conducting trial to see what others it will need there is no funding in the current EP without something else being affected.

MRV(P), well the JLTV has been chosen but when is the order going to be placed? and what about Group 2. Again programmes that have been drawn out through poor programme management, interference from other Governmental Departments and lack of money.

Oh and the MoD has realised after reading reports from other conflicts like the Ukraine, that the Royal Artillery is totally ill equipped for any peer conflict. It is out ranged in most classes, is behind the curve on in service ISTAR assets, and Land Ceptor, which may be a good system but buying only three batteries worth to protect all three services units and installations is ridiculous. And where is its big Brother that has had its capability gapped for nearly thirty years?

If we want to play with the big boys the next SDSR needs to properly driven by both foreign policy and the most up to date threat assessment, provide a list of capabilities and their capacities and then properly funded with NO mention of "Efficiencies". IF the Government believes this to be unaffordable then they simply have to re think their Foreign policy and abandon aspiration like having a global presence, being able to deploy an effective Army Division, or have a Carrier Strike Group available more often than not.

I know this is the Challenger 2 thread, but I hate Christmas and needed to vent.

[Ron5]

Yes BAe had sold/given away its UK based AFV operation

No it hasn't. Maybe it's just semantics but Bae has formed a joint company with Rheinmettal to both build Boxers and update Challenger 2's at existing Bae facilities in the UK. RM is putting in the cash needed to enable the facilities to be upgraded and gets 55% of the shares in the new UK company but with 45% of the shares Bae still has a major say. And Bae still owns UK guns ,ammo & the Baltic companies.

Being an optimist, I would say that Bae has joined up with one of the most successful international AFV companies in the world that could go forward and have great success together to the benefit of the UK & the BA.

If the MoD want the Challenger 2 to be a competitive MBT out to 2035 or later it is going to have to spend a lot more cash than just a tune up would cost. A new gun is all but mandatory, unless we want to have a bespoke production line for rounds that have lost much of their effectiveness against peer opposition. As for which gun well your choice is basically Rheinmetall's product or a licensed variant.

The decision has been taken to upgrade Challenger 2's with at least the new turret, 120mm L55 smooth bore gun, new Ajax optics & armor. The design is being matured and the MoD has said that will be ready for a production decision later this year when they will announce how many tanks will be upgraded.

If US depleted uranium ammunition is acquired as part of the package (and why not?) the result will mean that the upgraded Challenger will have the most powerful gun/ammo allied with the most effective armor in any western county's tank inventory. Meaning the UK could justifiably claim to have the best tank in the world. A pretty good Xmas present for you!!

On the flip side, numbers will be disappointing, maybe 150 or so. And money will have to be found from some other lower priority Army program(s). Take your pick: the Warrior upgrade looks shaky, MRV(P) could be reduced, Ajax could be reduced, etc etc

If the direction is a smaller UK army but extremely well equipped rather than a bigger army that is stretched rather thin with ancient equipment. I think I would select the former. But of course, it is never that black and white.

[RetroSicotte]

with the most effective armor in any western county's tank inventory.

There hasn't been any information released about the new Rhm based armour and how it compares to, for example, the M1A2C/D model made recently.

[Ron5]

with the most effective armor in any western county's tank inventory.

There hasn't been any information released about the new Rhm based armour and how it compares to, for example, the M1A2C/D model made recently.

I was referring to the hull armor and the turret armor packages which would be the same as the current Challenger 2 which being partly formed of the latest brand of Dorchester are claimed by some to be superior to even the latest US armor. Of course, nothing official and YMMV.

[Lord Jim]

Ok yes it is a joint operation, but for all intents and purposes BAe is out of the UK based AFV business. Telford is going to be running flat out to produce Rheinmetall goods, starting with the Boxer. As for BAe producing other items such as ammunition, this is becoming more and more limited as it no longer produces propellent charges for example. Its strength now rests with its overseas acquisitions on both sides of the pond.

[RetroSicotte]

I was referring to the hull armor and the turret armor packages which would be the same as the current Challenger 2 which being partly formed of the latest brand of Dorchester are claimed by some to be superior to even the latest US armor. Of course, nothing official and YMMV.

The Challenger's current armour was created in the early 90's...

The talk of the Dorchester armour being superior was in relation to documents stemming from the Leopard 2A4 C/D-tech armour, and the M1A2 (as in the original version). Most documents note that it is about the same as the M1A2. However since then the M1A2 has had numerous armour replacements and upgrades from SEP v1/2/3 into C and D packages. Leopard 2 has similarly gone from the 2A4 D-tech into the 2A5, 2A6, now 2A7.

There is no physical reality where Dorchester exceeds the current US packages, unfortunately. It's just not physically possible.

[Ron5]

I was referring to the hull armor and the turret armor packages which would be the same as the current Challenger 2 which being partly formed of the latest brand of Dorchester are claimed by some to be superior to even the latest US armor. Of course, nothing official and YMMV.

The Challenger's current armour was created in the early 90's...

The talk of the Dorchester armour being superior was in relation to documents stemming from the Leopard 2A4 C/D-tech armour, and the M1A2 (as in the original version). Most documents note that it is about the same as the M1A2. However since then the M1A2 has had numerous armour replacements and upgrades from SEP v1/2/3 into C and D packages. Leopard 2 has similarly gone from the 2A4 D-tech into the 2A5, 2A6, now 2A7.

There is no physical reality where Dorchester exceeds the current US packages, unfortunately. It's just not physically possible.

I am very aware your expertise in this area greatly exceeds mine but surely Challenger 2 armor packages are a lot more recent than 1990's. Others seem to think they have kept ahead of the game. It's the one aspect of the tank that has received upgrades. To be clear, I am referring to armor that is added on top of the base tank. One of the LEP groundrules was that neither company should alter hull or turret to prevent existing packages from being attached. If they did indeed date from the 90's that would be an odd restriction.

By the way, that rule explains why the new RM turret reminds so many of the original.

[Lord Jim]

I suppose it is quite possible that more advanced armour packages have been developed for the CR2, but like so many things no funding was available to take advantage of the work. I wonder if we still retain the know how to continue the work in this field? One thing is for sure though, the CR2 will be the last British tank and even then it contain many overseas equipment.

But at least the CR2 will go out with a bang as the LEP could propel it back into the to flight of Main Battle Tanks and keep us going until the late 2030s even if we only have two Regiments plus BATUS, if the latter actually get the LEP.

[Ron5]

I suppose it is quite possible that more advanced armour packages have been developed for the CR2, but like so many things no funding was available to take advantage of the work. I wonder if we still retain the know how to continue the work in this field? One thing is for sure though, the CR2 will be the last British tank and even then it contain many overseas equipment.

But at least the CR2 will go out with a bang as the LEP could propel it back into the to flight of Main Battle Tanks and keep us going until the late 2030s even if we only have two Regiments plus BATUS, if the latter actually get the LEP.

Or you could put aside the Christmas Grinch act and think that there are far more British engineers, managers and workers actively employed on AFV programs in the UK right this minute than probably any time this century, and will expand and continue for at least the next decade.

Interesting upcoming questions include: will LEP be renamed Challenger 3 by Boris? (I would), will Warrior WSCP be cancelled and replaced with an Ajax family IFV like the Australian competition entrant but with the CTA 40mm turret? (I would) will the UK join with Germany to develop a joint solution to a wheeled long range cannon developed by RBSL based on RB's South African work and Bae's Archer? (I would), will MRV(P) grp 2 be cancelled and replaced with more Boxers as Lord Jim has suggested (I would), should a Boxer mounted 120mm mortar like Nemo be acquired for short range fires? Should a Boxer mounted Brimstone/Spear be acquired for long range indirect fires ... I could go on but I think I've made my point that its exciting times for BA equipment choices

[Caribbean]

Interesting upcoming questions include: will LEP be renamed Challenger 3 by Boris? (I would), will Warrior WSCP be cancelled and replaced with an Ajax family IFV like the Australian competition entrant but with the CTA 40mm turret? (I would) will the UK join with Germany to develop a joint solution to a wheeled long range cannon developed by RBSL based on RB's South African work and Bae's Archer? (I would), will MRV(P) grp 2 be cancelled and replaced with more Boxers as Lord Jim has suggested (I would), should a Boxer mounted 120mm mortar like Nemo be acquired for short range fires? Should a Boxer mounted Brimstone/Spear be acquired for long range indirect fires ... I could go on but I think I've made my point that its exciting times for BA equipment choices

I would go for pretty much all of those. My only disagreement would be over MRV(P) Group 2 - I'd stick with Bushmaster (or similar) for the Light-role Infantry, and use the money saved by not using Boxer to add some vehicle-mounted LR 30mm cannon and ATGM (maybe on the heavy weapons JLTV variant, or whatever we do end up getting), 120mm towed/ portee mortars and Carl Gustavs.
Oops - apologies for going off-topic.

[Lord Jim]

Now we just need to make sure funding is in place as are the best programme management teams, and finally speed up the timeframe and I will be very happy and feeling less like a Grinch

[RetroSicotte]

but surely Challenger 2 armor packages are a lot more recent than 1990's.

Challenger 2 was first developed from 1989, met its final production standard before 1995, it was in service by 1998. Since then its base armour has never been upgraded even once. It's armour is approaching 30 years behind everyone else.

It's the one aspect of the tank that has received upgrades. To be clear, I am referring to armor that is added on top of the base tank.

Unfortunately not. The exterior armour comes in three main components:

1 - Turret Sides: This is just thin VARMA (which is a Dorchester optimsied for external components) intended to protect against RPGs and autocannons. Nothing really special. Does nothing against APFSDS.

2 - Hull Sides: Same as above.

3 - Lower Plate: This one is a bit meatier, but it still isn't THAT thick. There's no chance it stops an APFSDS with its thickness. (Not that KEPs are fired at lower plate, or even need to vs Challenger 2)

The actual base armour (hull front, turret cheeks, mantlet, turret sides) has never once been upgraded. Given the CR2 on introduction was estimated to be around as good as the M1A2, if not slightly worse against KEP rather than CE (Swedish leaks have shown us some numbers that I shan't repeat in too much detail) and the US estimated even Russian tanks capable of penetrating the M1A2s turrets some time ago...it's concerning.

it's why I've come to think of the Challenger 2 as a "bully". Put it against things its age, and it'll mop the floor with them. But as soon as it meets a modern tank, it's in serious, serious trouble if it takes a hit. Thats why I'm dearly hopeing Rheinmetall has done a complete armour replacement.

One of the LEP groundrules was that neither company should alter hull or turret to prevent existing packages from being attached. If they did indeed date from the 90's that would be an odd restriction.

That's very different. Thats just meaning "If you change it, we want to be able to use existing modules". That isn't saying to not change the base armour underneath (ie - the main thing).

[Ron5]

Many thanks for the information/education. Now I'm left wondering what armor will be new (apart from in the new turret) as announced.

[jimthelad]

I would like to point out that there has not been an operational loss of the CR2- ever. The US lost several M1's in 2003-2009, some to IED, some to ATGM (including 2 to Milan in Karbala 2003). As a former Milan ATGM Pltn Cdr, we respected the T72/80M variants, the Leo 2 was impressive in the frontal arc (the rear and sides were easy pickings with precision ATGM), the M1A1/2 were very good and I was glad they were on our side, but the CR2 scared us shitless. We got a lot of time looking at other peoples kit including 'acquired' Russian tanks, the CR2 was viewed at the toughest to kill in our opinion. As for upgrades, hopefully they will update the armour packages.

[RetroSicotte]

I would like to point out that there has not been an operational loss of the CR2- ever. The US lost several M1's in 2003-2009, some to IED, some to ATGM (including 2 to Milan in Karbala 2003). As a former Milan ATGM Pltn Cdr, we respected the T72/80M variants, the Leo 2 was impressive in the frontal arc (the rear and sides were easy pickings with precision ATGM), the M1A1/2 were very good and I was glad they were on our side, but the CR2 scared us shitless. We got a lot of time looking at other peoples kit including 'acquired' Russian tanks, the CR2 was viewed at the toughest to kill in our opinion. As for upgrades, hopefully they will update the armour packages.

I do not doubt your experiences, however I feel that the information may be too out of date to the current issues facing it given the weapons mentioned.

I've seen the US losses, there was a full list around somewhere. None of them were through the frontal armour. Even the CR2 couldn't take a MILAN to the side without its exterior modules, but this is all referring to urban counter-insurgency. The problem exists in contempary peer warfare.

Also bear in mind the MILAN last in use by the British and in use by the Iraqis are ancient, and are CE type weapons. KEPs are essentially a whole different rating. Tank armour is best simlpified as having two different 'ratings', the one against kinetic projectiles, and the one against chemical effect. On almost every tank, CE resistance is almost double that of the KE resistance.

MILAN not being able to harm M1A2, CR2, Leo 2 from the front is expected, because it's old, and it's using CE, which all tanks are MUCH better at resisting than KEP.

The problem is kinetic energy penetrators have not stopped developing. The Vacuum-2 round from the 2A46 Cannon for example, is starting to push 800-900mm KE penetration. Even if we were to take this with a grain of salt, its dimensions aren't that far off the US M829A3's estimated performancee of well above 700mm RHAe. (Both are likely about the same, the M829 possibly better due to its increase in weight and being made of DU.) Either way, KEPs throwing out 700+mm RHAe penetration are not uncommon these days.

The Challenger 2 was estimated about the same as the M1A2 originally, if slightly weaker in KEP resistance, but greater in CE resistance (which would reflect what you've said, Jim, Challenger 2 likely still has excellent CE resistance even today), then this presents a problem. The US seemingly found the M1A2 vulnerable frontally to KE rounds, and they upgraded it with the SEP package. Then again tothe v2 package. Then again to the C package. And now again with the D package.

Sweden found the Leopard 2A5 to be slightly better armoured than the M1A2. And they made a better version of that. And then the 2A6 came from the Germans. Then the 2A7.

Challenger 2 has meanwhile sat about using the same armour as back then. Thats why it's in danger against modern KEPs. Because unless the British somehow produced a 900mm+ KE resistant plate while having less LOS space in the hull in 1993 than every other tank nation who hadn't even managed to make it to 650mm by that time...then it's not going to be protected against modern KEPs.

[jimthelad]

The CR2 CAN take a shaped charge up to and including the Kornet and Bill-2 (the 2 largest warheads in manpacked ATGM) in the side panels. I am aware about the differences in KEP vs plasma jet warheads having spent a bit of time in the game and having had to do it for real. I do still keep current so I don't think I'm that out of date.

[Lord Jim]

With all of the above, the requirement to be able to fit existing addon armour packages might just be an interim thing until more advanced addons are developed. There are plenty of companies out there that produce these and do not forget the possibility of a APS as part of the package, essential if existing passive protection is not up to the task. This requirement is a bit of a red herring though as any new package could be made to go in the existing fittings. So it may appear to be a cost reduction item but in reality has little impact on where the programmes goes.

[Ron5]

With all of the above, the requirement to be able to fit existing addon armour packages might just be an interim thing until more advanced addons are developed. There are plenty of companies out there that produce these and do not forget the possibility of a APS as part of the package, essential if existing passive protection is not up to the task. This requirement is a bit of a red herring though as any new package could be made to go in the existing fittings. So it may appear to be a cost reduction item but in reality has little impact on where the programmes goes.

Yes, you're probably correct. They have said the program will introduce new armor, I'm now curious in what form that will appear. Whether it will be restricted to the new turret or new add on's or selected parts of the base hull. No doubt details will emerge one day.

I think (I'm being cautious in saying anything too definitive these days ) the UK still conducts research into advanced armor and I don't see any reason why some of whatever is the latest and greatest being stuck onto Challenger 3.

I also understand that up-rated Challenger powerpacks and transmissions are available on the commercial market so maybe a power boost as well if the suspension is up to it.

[SD67]

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"

[Lord Jim]

If we adopted the entire Rheinmetall proposal and included improvements to the drivetrain, the Challenger 3 would be viable well past 2035 as long as this time we have an ongoing programme of enhancements across the fleet. We must learn not to bring something into service and then wait until a large and expansive MLU, as we historically do. We must also stop relying on UORs to get us out of jail every time we become involved in a conflict. Yes there are always going to be a few item needed that were not previously identified, but recently we have had a large number of major items and capabilities we have needed to obtain rapidly that should have already been adopted, as a result of poor project management and lack of available funding.

[RetroSicotte]

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."

A Challenger 2 with an L55A1 Smoothbore, Orion sights, modern armour, and a 1,650hp engine will be viable long past 2035.

[mr.fred]

For the optimistic, the 2035 date could be the acceptance that 10-15 years is the longest you can expect an AFV to serve without some kind of update.

[Lord Jim]

Who knows how long we will keep the Challenger 2/3 in service. Look how long the US Army has kept the M1 Abrams going. Yes a further upgrade may be needed, in fact there should be a rolling programme of incremental upgrades moving forwards, maybe even fitting the 130mm gun in the 2030s. Whatever it has to be kept viable until the next Us or European MBT is developed as we are not going to be designing a successor are we?