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: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

I've never been able to find those results, other than anecdotes that the Challenger was not disadvantaged in any meaningful way and was able to cross ground the others could not.
Facts are facts though. Numbers don't lie. Every other modern tank has higher top speed, higher hp/t, better suspension liftspace, faster acceleration, sharper braking, better driver control method, better driver visibility and most also have better range.
It's the only instance of a catastrophic destruction of a CR2 I am aware of. I haven't gone back over the service record of all British tanks since the Centurion which all have similar ammunition stowage layout but was not of the impression that it was much of a problem.
Are there any battlefield assessments of the Iranian Chieftains from the first Gulf War?
Getting back to the specific incident, it shows that it takes one hell of an effort to achieve in the first place, so is it a real problem or only a theoretical one? If the crew are all killed by the threat required to spark a catastrophic explosion, then, callous as it sounds, who cares?
You're trying to be overly specific to avoid the harsh reality, I'm afraid.

Challenger stored explodable munitions in with the crew.

Modern tanks almost all avoid this. Calling into "well there's not been..." is a worthless arguement, because it's ignoring the core fact here. If a Challenger takes a hit to the ammo, the entire tank erupts and blows its turret clean off, killing the entire crew and wrecking it beyond use.

Meanwhile in Iraq, the Abrams proved that if it took a hit to the ammo then the blow out panels do their job, the tank remains intact and the crew escape. The tank is then recovered and re-crewed. This is because it doesn't have the lunacy to store the ammunition combustables inside the crew compartment. That is a fact. There is no word twisting around this that it is an enormous fault in the design for a tank in 2015.
If he runs away, you don't chase him.
What are you talking about?

Chasing is not simply a case of "he's running, let's go after him." It's about "this tank is outmaneuvering us". The fact remains that because it is so hopelessly immobile by comparison to its competitors, the Challenger is the one that will struggle. It needs to get side on to penetrate reliably with its outdated FIN ammo on other modern tanks. It needs to get closer because it has a lower velocity gun that has a much shorter range that it can output a penetrating shot at. So it needs to close range and outflank tanks that are not only pumping out more powerful shots but are easily more mobile in a given battlefield space.

That is the crucial problem here. It's the one that needs to get closer and to favourable angles and yet it's the worst at doing that. Watching a Challenger trying to catch something like a Leclerc, Abrams or Leopard would be like watching a toddler trying to catch a greyhound.
Look at proper combined arms tank use. The Russians still use T55s because they understand that no part of an army acts in isolation.
No they don't. They were retired a long time ago to reserve fleets. The Russian Ground Forces focus on the later model T-72's (with ERA that Challenger can't penetrate, I might remind...), T-90's and later this year, T-14. (They laso have T-80's, but they're being retired soon, if not already)
Base platform weight between Leo 2A6, Abrams M1A2SEP and CR2 are very similar.
They really aren't. Given Challenger must use its modular plates in order to match their protection, its weight immediately jumps to the high 60's, while the Abrams and Leo can happily use their 'standard' configs and still retain all around composite protection. A fully armoured CR2 comes to 75 tons for goodness sake. Even the fully TUSKed out Abrams doesn't even top 70.
Sources for the relative ranges? What I find shows them to be quite similar. Do other NATO armies have logistics support to make the range count? Does it make sense to compare outright road range when normal military movement involves lots of stopping and waiting, which disadvantages other tanks (Thinking Abrams with its gas turbine here)
Greek trials. Challenger showed it could do 450km on road. The British Army themselves quote it as 550km, but thats with the external modules. (As the internals have no-where near enough space for that and they haven't been upgraded since.) Meanwhile, Leopard 2 can do 550km on internal only. So can Leclerc. Altay is 600km, allegedly. Only the Abrams does less, at 426km, however it's an anomoly given its gas turbine engine and the US knowing they can keep up with it logistically in a major action. They can afford to be less efficient.
Maybe there is something going for the basic design and level of mobility if it is possible to stack so much appliqué armour on it.
No there isn't. Sorry if this is blunt but thats just speculative straw grasping. They had to put so much on because they realised how vulnerable the lower glacis, belly were. Funny how you never see any Abrams, Leopards, Leclercs, Ariete's or anything else needing such a massively heavy lower glacis block...because they don't have nothing more than a little RHA protecting it.
Did you ask a Challenger commander? Check with operational analysts?
A moot point. They are OPSECed to not give out the tank's weaknesses.

End of the day, there are major things and arguing over individual tiny points doesn't matter.

It is a fact that it is the least mobile modern MBT.
It is a fact that its gun is incapable of penetrating many forms of modern armour and is restricted to only tiny FINs and HESH.
It is a fact that it has a huge internals problem that leaves trhe entire crew in danger from ammunition ignition.
It is a fact that it relies on enormously heavy modules to protect its inherantly flawed basic design that leaves areas of the tank hopelessly vulnerable to modern weapons.

Those cannot be argued. They are proven facts in all respects. Whether we just buy a "short time cover" or go for something bigger, that decision needed to be made 10 years ago. Not in 2030. The idea that we will be driving a tank who's penetrative power maxes out at late 80's tanks 50 years on from its limit is absolutely abhorrant and a prime example of Cameron's "check box military" mentality.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote:Facts are facts though. Numbers don't lie. Every other modern tank has higher top speed, higher hp/t, better suspension liftspace, faster acceleration, sharper braking, better driver control method, better driver visibility and most also have better range.
Numbers don't lie, just like photographs. They may, however, not tell you what you might think they are telling you.
Do you think you could point me at the results of the Greek trial? I've been searching for them without success for some time?
You're trying to be overly specific to avoid the harsh reality, I'm afraid.

Challenger stored explodable munitions in with the crew.

Modern tanks almost all avoid this. Calling into "well there's not been..." is a worthless arguement, because it's ignoring the core fact here. If a Challenger takes a hit to the ammo, the entire tank erupts and blows its turret clean off, killing the entire crew and wrecking it beyond use.
I would say that I am trying to account for risk and basing the assessment on operational evidence.
Meanwhile in Iraq, the Abrams proved that if it took a hit to the ammo then the blow out panels do their job, the tank remains intact and the crew escape. The tank is then recovered and re-crewed. This is because it doesn't have the lunacy to store the ammunition combustables inside the crew compartment. That is a fact. There is no word twisting around this that it is an enormous fault in the design for a tank in 2015.
Armoured vehicles have been storing ammunition in the fighting compartment for their entire history. While undesirable, it still isn't evident that it increases the risk for the crew in a statistically meaningful way. Were I to design a new tank now, I'd more than likely side with you and put the bulk of the ammunition outside the fighting compartment. I wouldn't condemn all AFVs with internal stowage as hopelessly obsolete
Chasing is not simply a case of "he's running, let's go after him." It's about "this tank is outmaneuvering us". The fact remains that because it is so hopelessly immobile by comparison to its competitors, the Challenger is the one that will struggle. It needs to get side on to penetrate reliably with its outdated FIN ammo on other modern tanks. It needs to get closer because it has a lower velocity gun that has a much shorter range that it can output a penetrating shot at. So it needs to close range and outflank tanks that are not only pumping out more powerful shots but are easily more mobile in a given battlefield space.
That is the crucial problem here. It's the one that needs to get closer and to favourable angles and yet it's the worst at doing that. Watching a Challenger trying to catch something like a Leclerc, Abrams or Leopard would be like watching a toddler trying to catch a greyhound.
This is ridiculous hyperbole. What is the difference in stated speeds? 10kph? What's the difference in speed over similar terrain? The firepower disadvantage is only a problem against the very newest allied armour and possibly the very newest Russian/Chinese armour. This is not to say that it is not a problem - all the more reason to get the replacement designs up and running - but not a reason to immediately throw it all in the bin, which is what your comments keep sounding like.
No they don't. They were retired a long time ago to reserve fleets. The Russian Ground Forces focus on the later model T-72's (with ERA that Challenger can't penetrate, I might remind...), T-90's and later this year, T-14. (They laso have T-80's, but they're being retired soon, if not already)
But still used on operations, so such even more obsolescent tanks are still useful - that's my point, not that we should expect to meet them.
They really aren't. Given Challenger must use its modular plates in order to match their protection, its weight immediately jumps to the high 60's, while the Abrams and Leo can happily use their 'standard' configs and still retain all around composite protection. A fully armoured CR2 comes to 75 tons for goodness sake. Even the fully TUSKed out Abrams doesn't even top 70.
The Abrams perhaps can't move without breaking itself with more than 70t? This is the same Abrams that was disabled by a penetrating bog-standard RPG7 to the side.
Why is the CR2's armour scheme so relatively inefficient?
Greek trials. Challenger showed it could do 450km on road. The British Army themselves quote it as 550km, but thats with the external modules. (As the internals have no-where near enough space for that and they haven't been upgraded since.) Meanwhile, Leopard 2 can do 550km on internal only. So can Leclerc. Altay is 600km, allegedly. Only the Abrams does less, at 426km, however it's an anomoly given its gas turbine engine and the US knowing they can keep up with it logistically in a major action. They can afford to be less efficient.
Again, could you point me to those results? I've not seen them.
Strikes me that with external fuel (those two drums on the back?) the CR2 has the same road range as most NATO tanks. So where's the problem?
No there isn't. Sorry if this is blunt but thats just speculative straw grasping. They had to put so much on because they realised how vulnerable the lower glacis, belly were. Funny how you never see any Abrams, Leopards, Leclercs, Ariete's or anything else needing such a massively heavy lower glacis block...because they don't have nothing more than a little RHA protecting it.
Weill, it's all rather speculative, isn't it? How often are the rest of the NATO stable deployed to high threat regions where RPG-29s are being thrown about? Those things are rather vicious. Did I mention that there was an Abrams disabled by a basic RPG7?
A moot point. They are OPSECed to not give out the tank's weaknesses.
Yep. With good reason. Aren't other countries tank commanders?
End of the day, there are major things and arguing over individual tiny points doesn't matter.
I suspect we are, to a degree, arguing past each other anyway.
It is a fact that it is the least mobile modern MBT.

Depending on how you measure it and what you mean by 'mobile'
It is a fact that its gun is incapable of penetrating many forms of modern armour and is restricted to only tiny FINs and HESH.
So it is still effective in any role other than tank-on-tank engagement with modern armour. Worth knowing its limits and worth looking for a solution.
It is a fact that it has a huge internals problem that leaves trhe entire crew in danger from ammunition ignition.
At risk, certainly. How likely that risk is? Difficult to say without some serious Operational Analysis. I'd look to Israeli and Iranian use of British derived AFVs to see how often it is a problem. It is callous, I know, but if it will kill only one in 100 crew in penetrated tanks, it isn't really a problem, is it?
It is a fact that it relies on enormously heavy modules to protect its inherantly flawed basic design that leaves areas of the tank hopelessly vulnerable to modern weapons.
No, it's supposition, especially to the degree you are hyping it up.
Those cannot be argued. They are proven facts in all respects. Whether we just buy a "short time cover" or go for something bigger, that decision needed to be made 10 years ago. Not in 2030. The idea that we will be driving a tank who's penetrative power maxes out at late 80's tanks 50 years on from its limit is absolutely abhorrant and a prime example of Cameron's "check box military" mentality.
Even if the facts are accepted, the import of them is not necessarily as severe as you intimate.
The problem of not keeping up with obsolescence management is very real and must be addressed.
Plus I'd pitch the blame at more than one politician. The lack of development of the gun goes back further than the Tory Government.

A thought has occurred during all of this. Given the problems with lack of foresight and conservatism (not the political sort) in British AFV design, is it perhaps a good thing that there is a bit of a break in the design chain? Just throwing that out there.
If we do go ahead and design a new tank, perhaps every aspect of the design would need to be justified rather than being put in as a legacy demand?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Numbers don't lie, just like photographs. They may, however, not tell you what you might think they are telling you.
This is ridiculous hyperbole. What is the difference in stated speeds? 10kph? What's the difference in speed over similar terrain?
What part of it being a larger vehicle with a smaller engine is difficult for me to explain? There is no magic solution around there. The vehicle has no special magic box on it that takes basic physics away from this. Its suspension is still the Challenger 1's maximum ride height, which is only around 400, other tanks have upwards of 500 to 800.

It doesn't matter where you put it. It will not be faster than anything. Every single aspect of its mobility is worse other than one, which is gun stability from suspension ride while travelling over very small object. Once the object height passes 400 the vehicle is going to bump, whereas others won't. And even that's pretty much obselete anyway owing to fire control abilities allowing for first hit regardless on smooth terrain.

It's not faster to speed. It doesn't accelerate faster. It doesn't turn quicker. It doesn't steer as well (again, we're still using twin-stick in 2015!). It doesn't take bumps as well. If you feel there is some unspoken thing that will suddenly make it a mobile tank, please feel free to find it and come back. This suspension cripples its fire on move ability, as smaller bumps affect it.

http://www.steelbeasts.com/sbforums/sho ... hp?t=20551

Just check out the reports posted here from the Greek trials.

"Tank Abrams M1A2 - 20 hits of 20;
Tank Leclerc " - 19 hits of 20;
Tank Leopard 2A5 - 20 hits of 20;
Tank "Challenger 2E - 10 hits of 10, the move did not shoot;" (bad translation of 'did not move and shoot')

Also note this page contains some of the info you're after.

"- Abrams - 365 km;
"Leopard 2" - 375 km; (Older model, not as efficient as newer ones that can do 550km)
"Challenger " - 440 km;
· "Leclerc" - 500 km (Without the two additional drums); (ie - internal only)
· T-84 - 450km."

You say "But CR2 can use externals!" Well, so can all those other tanks, so that's a moot point.
I would say that I am trying to account for risk and basing the assessment on operational evidence.
That sounds like an awfully vague way to try and just say "Well it's not happened yet so...I guess it's all fine!" I'm sorry, but there is no defence to this. It has internally stored munitions. Other tanks do not. They are much safer than the Challenger as a result and the Abrams has proven this.

That same type of thing that blew the entire turret off a Challenger?



This is the same detonation on an Abrams. Crew compartment is safe and tank is mostly intact.
The firepower disadvantage is only a problem against the very newest allied armour
If by "very newest" you mean "anything with armour newer than 1985."
But still used on operations
Where has Russia used T-55's in a mainline deployment in 2015?
The Abrams perhaps can't move without breaking itself with more than 70t?
It doesn't need to go higher, because it's a more modern vehicle with lighter internal components (A2 replaced a lot of heavy wiring) and more crucially, does not require an enormous plate of additional composite on the lower glacis like Challenger does to hide an RHA only weakpoint. It's certainly not that it can't "take" more, especially given the Abrams has a larger suspension height allowance than the Challenger.
This is the same Abrams that was disabled by a penetrating bog-standard RPG7 to the side.
Not how you make it sound. That was a PG-7VR warhead, which has the same penetrating power as an RPG-29 when not hitting ERA. It struck the side-rear of the Abrams, and would have certainly done the same to a Challenger or any other tank.
Why is the CR2's armour scheme so relatively inefficient?
When a huge portion of your frontal arc only has 70mm of RHA, you have a problem.
Yep. With good reason. Aren't other countries tank commanders?
Not about other countries' tanks/competitors.
(On armour weakness) No, it's supposition, especially to the degree you are hyping it up.
But it's a proven fact that it has only 70mm RHA protection on that lower glacis and it has been penetrated by a weapon already. So yes, it is weak there. Do we even know how many Streetfighter kits were bought? We only had 27 tanks in theatre when they were and since 2009 we've not seen any but one at a time using them. Without that frontal plate the tank is very very vulnerable. Even a 30mm could penetrate that from 2km.
Even if the facts are accepted, the import of them is not necessarily as severe as you intimate.
Having the slowest tank around that cannot penetrate anything past Kontakt-5, has a very low range of engagement for penetrative power, and has only RHA protection without modular add ons (that only make it slower) is not a severe concern? I'd say that's a pretty colossal flaw.

The worst thing is, Think Defence has gone over plenty of money wastage in the MoD on ridiculous "human resources assessments". The amount of money has certainly over time reached what it would have taken to requip the fleet with at least a redesigned turret with a new bustle to permit a proper gun...with a little more intelligence, we could have had it, but it just keeps getting cancelled again and again.

I'm just waiting for the call up and the politicians (And MoD) to suddenly hit that wall of "Oh, we aren't a leading armour nation?" now. Without relying on air power (which in itself is heavily taxed and likely not always available or able to enter the battlespace, not to mention the delay and hitting right), the Army has a woeful lack of anti-armour in a world quickly getting heavier with armour. Challenger was our cornerstone at doing it. After that we have...nothing. No ATGM vehicles, no tank destroyers. The biggest gun down from the Chally is a 30mm (soon 40mm). And sending infantry to go attack a tank battalion with Javelins and short range NLAWs will not be such a popular thing...

The reason Challenger being top of the table is because it is the anti-armour asset of the British Army on the ground. Its only dedicated platform for it without relying on a limited quantity of air strikes.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

I see no sense in carrying on butting heads.
Make of the data what you will, I shall do the same.
Thanks for the Greek trials info.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

RetroSicotte
Well you really seem to have a downer on CR2
I wonder where you obtain your information as protection levels and gun penetration values are not widely advertised.
To start with the L30 gun. The penetration figures I can find seem to me to be comparable with other high velocity tank guns. As for protection levels most sources seem to suggest they are at least equal if not better than all other MBTs. Of course no tank is immune to enemy fire all tanks will have their weakness's. Incidentally the reason the M1 has a sealed off ammo compartment is because it had to be stored in the turret bustle, which experience has shown is highly vulnerable. CR2 stores all its charges within the hull in armoured charge bins which are less vulnerable. Which is one reason for having three piece ammunition.
Turning to mobility you cant argue with the need for an uprated engine particularly with the extra weight added. However the hydrogas suspension fitted to CR2 is excellent I cant see any problems in that area.
To sum up I believe you have a rather pessimistic view of the quality of CR2. Yes some updates are required but it should be able to soldier on until 2030. Which means the Army needs to start seriously considering what that replacement should be.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

I quite agree. We're just gonna end up in circles at this moment.

I'll just finish by saying that I have no love in saying these things about the Challenger. I love the vehicle for what it is, but I can't force myself to pretend otherwise after seeing enough information saying otherwise.

For a more...agreeable topic...

Personally, at this time I feel our best way forward is to coordinate with the Italians. They have recent experience in making smoothbore guns with the Ariete and Oto Melara can easily help bolster us back into producing something heavy that helps avert enormous set up fees. The Italians are in great need of a new tank as well (Ariete is in much the same boat as Challenger) and had been planning an "Ariete C2" to appear. We have much to offer them with hydropneumatic suspension and Dorchester composite, while the Italians produce a 1,600hp engine that just didn't get used yet and of course, that gun. (Although it's every big likely it'd just end up taking the Rheinmetall 120mm L55, which is no bad thing!)

We're used to working with them and they've been fairly good about projects thus far, often times they exceed capability. (Look at the improvements they did on the FREMM!) It seems natural to get on with them, as the FrancoGermanic project is way too far off and buying another 3rd Gen right now seems like it's only a short term solution. The Italians strike me as a good middle ground. Ammunition could probably come from Germany, I'd imagine.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

Just buy what ever the Americans are currently fielding, but into their logistics and spares system job jobbed.

Maybe not as well protected as the CR2 but We are out of the tank building bespoke game.

Pymes75
Member
Posts: 279
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:17
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Pymes75 »

Tinman wrote:Just buy what ever the Americans are currently fielding, but into their logistics and spares system job jobbed.

Maybe not as well protected as the CR2 but We are out of the tank building bespoke game.
We can't afford the logistics train that the Abrams is reported to require.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by SKB »

From the documentaries and forums I've read, the Abrams is handicapped by having a shorter range than a Challenger 2 and also requires an enormous fleet of support vehicles following it around everywhere it goes.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Tinman wrote:... but We are out of the tank building bespoke game.
Why do you think that?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

Tinman wrote:Just buy what ever the Americans are currently fielding, but into their logistics and spares system job jobbed.

Maybe not as well protected as the CR2 but We are out of the tank building bespoke game.
Why don't we just become the 51st state then?
I am against all this sending our tax to the Americans. The UK is more than capable of building anything, the carriers go some way to corroborate that.
@LandSharkUK

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tony Williams »

shark bait wrote: I am against all this sending our tax to the Americans. The UK is more than capable of building anything, the carriers go some way to corroborate that.
There are two separate issues here: selecting the best design, and deciding where it will be built.

Whether it's a good idea to design our own equipment from scratch depends to a great extent on the availability of existing designs - can they meet our needs or do we have any unique requirements? The carriers are "one-offs" - there was no existing design available off-the-shelf to do the same job, so we had to go for a bespoke design. That certainly isn't the case with most military equipment, including battle tanks. Given the number of tanks we would be likely to require (somewhere between 100 and 200?) would it really make sense to set up an inexperienced design team to go through the whole process of learning how to design tanks from scratch? Only to send them to the job centre when the design is complete?

Whether the equipment should be built at home or bought from an existing production line raises similar issues. It will almost certainly be cheaper to buy from the original manufacturer, unless we have industries already up and running which are capable of doing the job efficiently - in which case fine, lets build them here. Provided of course that we avoid the temptation to meddle by fitting British engines or other equipment. I recall those UK Phantom II jets which were vastly more expensive than the US ones, and the same went for the Westland Apaches.

I am all in favour of retaining British design and build capability for military equipment. But only where there is enough work on a continuing basis to keep the design teams and factories fully employed. Otherwise, home build just becomes a very expensive luxury. And our defence budget is too tight as it is, without wasting money on luxuries.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

mr.fred wrote:
Tinman wrote:... but We are out of the tank building bespoke game.
Why do you think that?
Seriously?

:lol:

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

shark bait wrote:
Tinman wrote:Just buy what ever the Americans are currently fielding, but into their logistics and spares system job jobbed.

Maybe not as well protected as the CR2 but We are out of the tank building bespoke game.
Why don't we just become the 51st state then?
I am against all this sending our tax to the Americans. The UK is more than capable of building anything, the carriers go some way to corroborate that.
Quite ironic that you use an example of something that was discussed in 98ish, and will enter service 2018, maybe with more than helibobs.

We have bought into C130, Chinook, Seaking, Airseeker, Phantom, Sabre, Mustang, C17, to name but a few.

Give your head a swivel.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Tinman wrote:
mr.fred wrote:
Tinman wrote:... but We are out of the tank building bespoke game.
Why do you think that?
Seriously?

:lol:
Yes.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

mr.fred wrote: Yes.
Not completely.
Lockheed Martin UK wrote:Multi-Million Pound Manufacturing Development Gets Underway in Ampthill

http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/uk/news ... f9114608=1

The UK also has big automotive engineering muscle and considerable material science expertise. I think if their was a need to develop a new tank it could be done natively without too much trouble.

How about a gas turbine electric hybrid plastic tank with a laser cannon?
@LandSharkUK

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tony Williams »

shark bait wrote: The UK also has big automotive engineering muscle and considerable material science expertise. I think if their was a need to develop a new tank it could be done natively without too much trouble.
You are overlooking the vast amount of accumulated experience which goes into designing complex military equipment. Starting from scratch with an inexperienced team would involve almost inevitable delays and increased costs, with a higher risk of problems along the way.

Even quite simple equipment - like a rifle - can be problematic. Look at the mess that the British got into with the SA80, before they were bailed out by HK. Even when the UK was still one of the greatest powers on Earth, we still commonly bought in foreign equipment: Hispano, Bofors and Oerlikon cannon, for instance; plus the Bren Gun, BESA machine guns and lots of other stuff.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

shark bait wrote:
mr.fred wrote: Yes.
Not completely.
Lockheed Martin UK wrote:Multi-Million Pound Manufacturing Development Gets Underway in Ampthill

http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/uk/news ... f9114608=1

The UK also has big automotive engineering muscle and considerable material science expertise. I think if their was a need to develop a new tank it could be done natively without too much trouble.

How about a gas turbine electric hybrid plastic tank with a laser cannon?
The automotive capacity is privately owned, geared for mass production. If you actually think those skill sets and production models can be transferred without massive expense before the price of armoured chariot is finally calculated. Your either 9 or 99.

Please explain your business model for the UK to re generate MBT building and design.



Thanks .

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Tinman wrote: Please explain your business model for the UK to re generate MBT building and design.

Thanks .
Personally I'd find a design house (either the two existing ones or use the skill sets existing within the MoD), use the collected operational analysis to inform the design, buy all the parts from the existing supplier base then get them assembled at one of the companies specialising in short-run heavy machinery.
While it won't be cheap, it might cost a flight of jet fighters or a small proportion of a Carrier before you get started, but after that shouldn't be any more costly than anyone else, with the added benefit of getting a chunk of it back in tax revenue.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

Tinman wrote: Please explain your business model for the UK to re generate MBT building and design.
why would I have a business model? also "The automotive capacity is privately owned" ........so is the entire defence industry.

Back to starting a tank factory:

The most important things to get right for manufacturing are the skill sets and the supply chain. Their are thousands of engineers with transferable skills in the UK. We build loads of cars, heavy plant, and military vehicles, so throughout the UK there are many suspension, transmission, engine, chassis and everything else within the country. They may not all be in the same place right now but that's what recruitment companies are for. This large manufacturing base comes with a huge number of tier one suppliers, who already have supply chains in place, equipment that is paid for, and experienced workers, significantly reducing the hassle. The British army have tonnes of experience operating and maintaining tanks, all of which will be fed into the design. No doubt we will also pull in products from our allies in an attempt to buy some modules 'off the shelf', allowing us to ean on their expertise as well. I have no doubt there is the capability to design and manufacture a MBT indigenously.

Astute was so difficult because there is no real nuclear industry in the uk (its why the French are building our new power stations for us), or indeed underwater boat building, so that was a completely different challenge.
@LandSharkUK

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

That's what people are saying though.

We could. But the costs to set up the entire thing and take the time to coordinate that together would be enormous, far more than otherwise may even be acceptable now.

Astute was a prime example of why you don't let your industry die off then have to recollect it. Challenger is the most modern AFV we've made at home and that was in 1998. IT's not that we couldn't, it's that it would be horrendously expensive, impractical and time consuming.

It's why I have a distinct feeling any new MBT is going to either be co-developed, licence built or simply bought and then "converted" here as the first step to help rebuild rather than jump in at the deep end.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

It wouldn't be anywhere as bad as astute, thats the point I'm trying to make.
We already build things 'similar' to a tank.
We didn't build anything remotely like astute before that came along.
@LandSharkUK

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

shark bait wrote:It wouldn't be anywhere as bad as astute, thats the point I'm trying to make.
We already build things 'similar' to a tank.
We didn't build anything remotely like astute before that came along.
Comparing world leading SSN boats, to the development of MBT is to say the least silly. We build our own boats to keep the deterrence viable, the fact that it costs an arm and a leg is due to the number of hulls.

The army have spent the last 15 years focused on COIN ops, apart from a brief stint in 2003. The love for MBT is not high on the lists of many generals, look at how the WAH64 upgrade is being talked about in the Main stream media, while compare it to the CR2.

For us to design build and operate our own MBT in the future would be costly and a serious error In judgement when we could just buy in from Germany or America.

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

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Tinman wrote: For us to design build and operate our own MBT in the future would be costly and a serious error In judgement when we could just buy in from Germany or America.
The USA won't have one ready for when we need it.
The Germans/French may, but there's no guarantee that it will fit into our concept of operations.
The additional cost of rolling our own is offset in part by tax.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I wonder what's wrong with the latest Abrams... just drop a diesel into it? At least would not need to play catch-up with getting a state of the art penetrator round for it (the current Parliament might even accept DU if someone carefully explained what needs to be achieved with it)?

The Italian JV dvlpmnt might be interesting, but would probably end up more expensive than the above (or a Leo 7). What is this 1600 bhp piece that hasn't been applied yet?
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)

Post Reply