FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Little J
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

Is it slightly concerning that both upgrade teams are now working as one... Or do I need to take my tin foil hat off :think:

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 »

Little J wrote:Is it slightly concerning that both upgrade teams are now working as one... Or do I need to take my tin foil hat off :think:
There is no confirmation that they are yet.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

I think this is due to a combination of two things, one the BAE Systems consortium has lost the upgrade contract and two RheinMetall need somewhere to build the boxer for MIV.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

What about CV90?

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 »

Ron5 wrote:What about CV90?
Nothing to do with the UK end of things. Thats all Sweden.

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 »

Agreed, this is all about the MIV/Boxer rather then anything to do with the CR2 upgrade programme. I wish the Defence Select Committee would have a session asking those involved what is the state of the Army's AFV re-equipment plans as many seem to be up in the air or moving so slowly they almost appear to be standing still.

As for proposals for the CR2 upgrade, I still think we could do a lot worse than getting second hand Leopard 2 and having them upgraded either by the OEM or Rheinmetall who have their own upgrade package. Given what the Poles paid for theirs including the upgrade, spares and so on it would be interesting to see if we could get enough vehicles to meet the Army's needs from roughly the existing programme budget. Around 120 should do? Then we wait for the next generation platform to come along either from the US or Europe in the 2030s.

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Little J wrote:Is it slightly concerning that both upgrade teams are now working as one... Or do I need to take my tin foil hat off :think:
3 of the 4 teams bidding Land 400 Ph3 would then be "working together" on CR2 LEP. I don't believe that for a second.

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: have a session asking those involved what is the state of the Army's AFV re-equipment plans as many seem to be up in the air or moving so slowly they almost appear to be standing still.
:lol:
Lord Jim wrote: Given what the Poles paid for theirs including the upgrade
- nothing for the tanks ( a motley collection)
- and e 5 mln to get something workable out of them ( per piece)
Ron5 wrote:What about CV90?
Let's play this one for the 11th time ( a first for this forum? Where is that Naval Architect that used to preach 'Religion' on TD... has he retired; you know building ships and doing the military fitting out cannot be separated... called modularity :P these days )
- the bid was the best one
- BAE had "solemn" undertakings with various host countries (following their take-over, or as the blue-eyed 'natives' saw it: a "stewardship" of AFV manufacturing)
- they were 'torn'
- they switched from Sweden to UK (manufacturing %) in the last moment (or was it after the decision?)
- that was not good enough
- the rest is history :wave:
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Dunno what you are talking about, I was inquiring whether the status of CV90 was altered by the tie up between Bae & Rheinmetal.

Seems to be unaffected was the answer I got.

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:I was inquiring [...]
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Is this a game of 5... to be reduced?

No, it was the German side (Rheinmetall, as for staying in AFVs) that was under pressure and went into the agreement,

RetroSicotte wrote:
Where does it say about the CR2 upgrade?

What else is there, to play for?

so:
GD, Atlanticist ( :) )
BAE, Atlanticist ( :) )
KNDS, not-so-so Atlanticist
the tie up between Bae & Rheinmetal.
Sorry about not seeing what your question :lol: was about. A lot of the little bear with a little brain quotes have been flying about... lately
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)

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:As for proposals for the CR2 upgrade, I still think we could do a lot worse than getting second hand Leopard 2 and having them upgraded either by the OEM or Rheinmetall who have their own upgrade package. Given what the Poles paid for theirs including the upgrade, spares and so on it would be interesting to see if we could get enough vehicles to meet the Army's needs from roughly the existing programme budget. Around 120 should do? Then we wait for the next generation platform to come along either from the US or Europe in the 2030s.
Second hand from who though?

The only second hand 2A5 or higher on the market was from the Netherlands as far as I am aware, and all theirs were bought already. Germany is bringing their own 2A6s back into service, so they aren't available.

There is zero worth getting the ones before the 2A5, their base hull is riddled with huge errors that the 2A5 (partially) fixed and are a massive mishmash of minor variations that have cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.

Would need a lot more than 120 as well. 200 minimum really to have a robust fleet depth. Heck, even France is finding 200 isn't enough to maintain worthwhile readiness levels of a certain weight, and they only get away with that because they have another 206 in storage, similar to ourselves to draw from when needed.

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.
e 5 mln a piece vs. our £700 mln divided by X ( the MoD being very coy about what "X" will be)
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)

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.
e 5 mln a piece vs. our £700 mln divided by X ( the MoD being very coy about what "X" will be)
That 5 mil apiece is only the tip of the iceberg for them, unfortunately. They've had to pay a lot more to constantly fix problems related to their fleet being made up of "whatevers" from the old A4 variations.

For example, the A4 had three separate armour models, two separate hull models, three separate transmission layouts (despite having the same one!), two separate turret ring allowances, countless variations in internal systems from major to minor.

It's been a complete mess.

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 »

You are obviously more "glued in" on this than I am; why did the German contract to get their tanks (already sold back to the manufacturer, for export) back into service stretch for so long... 3-4 years?

I am suspecting that the rounds that only the A7 can handle have something to do with it
... and that could have something to do with the latest Ch2 LEP news, as well :idea:
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)

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:You are obviously more "glued in" on this than I am; why did the German contract to get their tanks (already sold back to the manufacturer, for export) back into service stretch for so long... 3-4 years?

I am suspecting that the rounds that only the A7 can handle have something to do with it
... and that could have something to do with the latest Ch2 LEP news, as well :idea:
I'm not aware of a round that only the A7 can use. Maybe you know something I've missed there, but the DM63 can be used in any Rm120 I think. It's basically a DM53 with changed internals to the round. As I said, maybe there's something I dunno about its other ammunition. (Data linked one to the A7 perhaps?)

The time I don't have a concrete answer on, other than perhaps being a mixture of politics (keep the place in work after the big Gulf A7 contract fell through) and reduced capacity. German Army sure isn't in a rush for it, with their budget problems.

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1747
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by The Armchair Soldier »

Spotted this on Twitter:

Image

Rheinmetall's Challenger 2 LEP technology demonstrator

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 »

That would be a Rm120 L55 smoothbore, that'd be!

CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
United Kingdom

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

Post by CameronPerson »

Bit more info on the above posted image via twitter




MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

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

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

RetroSicotte wrote:
Ron5 wrote:What about CV90?
Nothing to do with the UK end of things. Thats all Sweden.
Yes its does. BAE UK still control the purse strings and get the final say on development of new vehicles and systems. A fact that has hamstrung and driven the Swedes crazy multiple times at least since the introduction of the CV90 MKIII .

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

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

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

Ron5 wrote:What about CV90?
That is a damn good question. I'm guessing right now the management at Hägglunds and maybe also Bofors is frantically scrambling to find potential new owners.....everything to avoid coming under kraut influence......because the Swedes know all to well what happens when under german ownership!

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 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:Yes its does. BAE UK still control the purse strings and get the final say on development of new vehicles and systems. A fact that has hamstrung and driven the Swedes crazy multiple times at least since the introduction of the CV90 MKIII .
But not what Rheinmetal got. This is a different thing entirely to BAE in Sweden, Rheinmetal/BAE in the UK has no say over it, only the "core" BAE.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

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

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

RetroSicotte wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.
e 5 mln a piece vs. our £700 mln divided by X ( the MoD being very coy about what "X" will be)
That 5 mil apiece is only the tip of the iceberg for them, unfortunately. They've had to pay a lot more to constantly fix problems related to their fleet being made up of "whatevers" from the old A4 variations.

It's been a complete mess.
Ahh...you've been listening to Damian again i see :roll: ..(or Sturgeons House forum....they are equally bad!).....isnt it funny that the Poles seemingly had/has all these problems with their A4s yet when you actually talk to polish tankers they cant recognize any of these issues. And why havent we heard anything about these seemingly "YUUUGE" problems from all the other users of the A4 model, Finland, Sweden(STRV121-no longer in use), Spain, Chile etc..?
I'll also note that when we (DK) bought our first batch of 51 A4s in 1998, they were from 6 different production batces(from 81'-85'), yet we encountered none of these issues before we had them upgraded to A5DK standard.....

Yes there are slight differences and variations between the various production lots......but in 90% of the cases the parts are the same.
For example, the A4 had three separate armour models
,
Allegedly!.....that is if you believe all the so called "leaked" documents on the Leo2 that very conveniently popped up recently :lol: .....i dont :roll:
two separate hull models
No such thing......that hull is the same in all models, save for the placement of the return rollers, which changed once in the pre A4 versions.....meaning there are 2 configurations, but with the same rollers, track and everything so it has no impact on maintenance or operation whatsoever.
three separate transmission layouts (despite having the same one!),
There is a grain of truth to this, but it isnt really the layout that differs but only the design of the internal disc brakes (used at speeds <20mph) which became stronger in newer transmissions......was changed again in some A5 and A6 models (Leo2A5DK, Strv122, and Leopardo 2E, Leo 2A6HEL)....none of which has much impact on operations.
countless variations in internal systems from major to minor.
This is complete hyperbole from a moron (damian)who doesnt have any actual experience on the Leopard 2 or any tank for that matter and who gets 99% of his information from 2nd or 3rd hand sources or the internet :roll: ......whatever variations exist is at worst minor and inconsequential.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

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

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

RetroSicotte wrote:There is zero worth getting the ones before the 2A5, their base hull is riddled with huge errors that the 2A5 (partially) fixed
And what "huge errors" would that be, i wonder? Also like to know what was only partially fixed.

and are a massive mishmash of minor variations that have cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.
No offence , but i'd take what the poles have to say with a truck load of salt!.....especially knowing the likely source.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

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

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

RetroSicotte wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote:Yes its does. BAE UK still control the purse strings and get the final say on development of new vehicles and systems. A fact that has hamstrung and driven the Swedes crazy multiple times at least since the introduction of the CV90 MKIII .
But not what Rheinmetal got. This is a different thing entirely to BAE in Sweden, Rheinmetal/BAE in the UK has no say over it, only the "core" BAE.
Maybe.....for now at least......However having thrown their lot in with Rheinmetall and OCCAR/ARTEC, BAE UK have no interest in protecting their Swedish subsidiary and the germans are hell bent on gaining consolidation and complete dominance in the european land defence business. If i were head of Hägglunds i would be calling SAAB right about now.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Well as far as I am concerned the Rheinmetall version is a winner and beats the BAe offering hands down. It seems to solve the issues with obsolete electronics and FCS whilst also addressing the issues with the Rifled 120mm. If the turret is built in the UK as well it will only not win if the MoD is directed to pursue the BAe option by the Politicians. Saying that BAe isn't exactly the MoD's favourite AFV manufacturer.

Post Reply