FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

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

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by abc123 »

What's that- a Challenger 2 modernisation or?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

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 »

Design Review and Main Gate still ahead, but to be completed by Oct... which makes the prgrm abt a yr late from general expectation. Even though we don't have the foggiest (except guessing) of what is to be delivered, a Snr Resp. Owner would not be nominated w/o the expectation of this going ahead.

"It is important to be clear that your accountability relates only to implementation: it will remain for the Minister to account for the relevant policy decisions and development. As the Armour Main Battle Tank 2025 Programme is in the assessment phase, in your case this means that from the date of signature of this letter you will be held personally accountable for delivery and could be called by Select Committees."
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)

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

What's that- a Challenger 2 modernisation or?
What we know as CR2 LEP. Same thing; the programme has had the name Armour MBT 2025 for years to go along with "Armoured Cavalry 2025" (AJAX) and "Armoured Infantry 2026" (WCSP and, in happier days, ABSV before the latter quietly vanished yet once more).
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Gabriele wrote:Armour MBT 2025 for years to go along with "Armoured Cavalry 2025" (AJAX) and "Armoured Infantry 2026" (WCSP and, in happier days, ABSV
Those even have budget lines... not that I have see the one for armour
- should appear by Oct as Main Gate has been set to be before that
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)

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

In theory they all have funding lines. They used to be a single mega-programme until... 2014, i think...? I wrote about it in the past, but it's been a while.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Gabriele wrote:used to be a single mega-programme until... 2014
Like in the song: 3000 vehicles; may be more?
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: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Thanks for showing us this.

But what a load of absolute bullshit. No wonder nothing useful ever gets done in procurement with this kind of crap. I though the services were models for clear, concise instructions. Something this ain't.

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 »

By the way, we really do have a lot more than a "foggiest" idea of what the program will deliver.

There's some mystery about numbers but the tank will get a new turret, new gun, new sensors, new combat system and new armor. Plus some engine & transmission tune up to be delivered by a different program. Basically, a refresh that will deliver the best tank in the world.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
There's some mystery about numbers but the tank will get a new turret, new gun, new sensors, new combat system and new armor. .
When was any of that confirmed?

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 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
There's some mystery about numbers but the tank will get a new turret, new gun, new sensors, new combat system and new armor. .
When was any of that confirmed?
Seriously?

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
There's some mystery about numbers but the tank will get a new turret, new gun, new sensors, new combat system and new armor. .
When was any of that confirmed?
Seriously?
Please fill in the gaps for me.

The competitive bid request was for an obsolescence upgrade, addressing several LRU within the platform with only small scope for increased capabilities.

The RLS bid went beyond this and decided to pitch a gucci new turret, new gun solution that made the troopers delighted, but there's obviously an increased price to all this.

So where has the programme been realigned from a Life Extension Programme to a Capability Improvement Programme?

I'm genuinely interested if I've missed something.

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 »

Both the
Design Review and Main Gate still ahead, but to be completed by Oct
will be delighted to find that at least tracks are not new... and when replaced, coming out of the support and maintenance budget - thus no one will notice
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)

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 »

More seriously, I do hope that as we will have two thirds of a decade to remanufacture one and a half hundred tanks, as for
RunningStrong wrote:from a Life Extension Programme to a Capability Improvement Programme?
,
A. that will provide enough thanks 'in the line' ie. in the garage at all times, and
B. the reduction in number perhaps(?) opens the way to a true capability improvement
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: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
There's some mystery about numbers but the tank will get a new turret, new gun, new sensors, new combat system and new armor. .
When was any of that confirmed?
Seriously?
Please fill in the gaps for me.

The competitive bid request was for an obsolescence upgrade, addressing several LRU within the platform with only small scope for increased capabilities.

The RLS bid went beyond this and decided to pitch a gucci new turret, new gun solution that made the troopers delighted, but there's obviously an increased price to all this.

So where has the programme been realigned from a Life Extension Programme to a Capability Improvement Programme?

I'm genuinely interested if I've missed something.
Of course nothing is certain until the last nut and bolt have been paid for and delivered. It's perfectly possible that the program will end up as a new coat of paint and nothing more. Possible but unlikely.

But the recent NAO report (available online someplace) stated that the program had been upgraded from pure obsolescence management to become a capability upgrade. In other words the cute RM demonstrator which won the competition, has also won some hearts and minds. The NAO also stated that the extra cost would be addressed by fewer vehicles being converted and unspecified anti-tank missile program being delayed or cancelled (can't remember which).

Also I think the announcement of Brigadier Stuart's task of bring this to main gate later this year conforms the importance that the Army assigns to this program.

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:to main gate later this year conforms the importance that the Army assigns to this program.
Yes, they would not nominate someone that high up for nothing.
Ron5 wrote: The NAO also stated that the extra cost would be addressed by fewer vehicles being converted
Oh, when I stated that upthread it was pure speculation on my part... have to see if I can find the NAO bit as the EP doc itself only says " enhance the lethality and protection of the UK’s main battle tank as well as treating critical obsolescence and extending the life of the platform from 2025 to at least 2035."
- putting the word "lethality" in that
- together with the change of prgrm name to LEP+
would suggest a new gun (as new round for the old one has not been mentioned).
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)

J. Tattersall

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

Post by J. Tattersall »

Well let's see what comes out of the programme. Pretty inevitable that if a capability enhancement is asked for (rather than just life extension) then the money will need to be redirected from another programme or result in reduced numbers.

If an enhanced capability (in smaller numbers) it will be interesting to see how this is organised and deployed?

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 »

J. Tattersall wrote:be interesting to see how this is organised and deployed
I am afraid that we already have the answer: simply drop one regiment.

In the light of an informed article on anther forum: https://uklandpower.com/2020/05/23/the- ... ment-41302 also the wrong answer. Two thoughts that will enhance our overall capability:
1. the almost 1/3 of the current number of MBTs that will not (??) be upgraded will be held by a Yeomanry Rgmnt, and will be available to be - unorthodox-ity follows - penny-packeted outside the "warfighting division, capable of manoeuvre warfare". Will simply be upgraded for comms and coordination with the infantry they support... as I have written here about the USMC tank upgrades, which have been applied to the M1 'originals'
2. if the drop in numbers will be as substantial as rumoured that will help to keep the two (remaining) regular tank rgmnts fully operational during the remanufacturing of a significant proportion of the current fleet, then
... reiterate ;) back to 1. above
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)

J. Tattersall

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

Post by J. Tattersall »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I am afraid that we already have the answer: simply drop one regiment.
.
The armoured regiment in the third armoured infantry brigade is to be reroled as medium armour leaving two regular armoured regiments. But.my point is what happens if when the costs come in it's found that there's not enough money for even two regiments (when one takes into account vehicles in deep maintenance, BATUS etc.). What would be done then? How would they be organised?

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

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

Post by whitelancer »

If we go down to just 1 Armoured Regiment its frankly not worth having, in fact its debatable whether the cost of maintaining 2 is worth it.

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 »

The rumours have been that "around 150" C2 will be upgraded. 156 would be enough for 2x Type 56 regular plus one Type 44 Reserve Regiment (though more likely to be spread across reserve and training). Driver training would only need the existing DT vehicles and I suspect that the existing version could be used to cover a great deal of the training requirement, with gunnery being the obvious difference.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

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

Post by whitelancer »

The 148 to be up dated are enough for just the 2 Type 56 Regiments, with the balance as Battle Casualty Replacements.

J. Tattersall

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

Post by J. Tattersall »

Yes, but bear in mind drone puff those vehicles will be permanently in BATUS, some in storage in readiness for deployment, some in maintenance etc, meaning that that these will need to be reactivated/ repositioned to provide 2 regiments for deployment.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Caribbean wrote: I suspect that the existing version could be used to cover a great deal of the training requirement, with gunnery being the obvious difference.
How so? If this is a capability upgrade with single piece ammunition, improved STA and digital interfaces then it will be a completely different beast.

I suspect the contract would instead include comprehensive training simulation facilities, akin to what is available on AJAX.

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 »

I believe there's a tad more to training to operate a tank than firing the gun and learning a new interface. Operating as a unit would be pretty high on the list. Tactics would be in there. Navigation, command skills, standard process and procedures as well. All stuff that could be done in an unmodified vehicle (much of which would need to be innate skills, so you can still function when the pretty, pretty hi-tech gear goes phut at a critical point). Then move on to the simulators (good, but not quite the same as being there) and finally to the "real thing" for advanced training.
Presumably they could also be used as Opfor in training exercises as well.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply