FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

[mr.fred]

Could someone educate me on what constitutes a tank generation?

[CMOR]

My take is something like this

The British Army needs MBTs to be competitive vs Russia (in other scenarios we can mostly live without). However, vs Russia it has so many howling qualitative deficits in all sorts of fields (artillery, GBAD, SHORAD, EW, the list goes on....) that it's far from obvious that CR2 LEP is the most overwhelming priority, given limited funds. Put simply the money just isn't there to both recapitalize the traditional Armoured Brigades while also develop the Strike Brigade(s) into something credible, so you have to pick & choose. And yes, this is largely the Army's fault. No one made it choose the most expensive 8x8 on the market (Boxer), no one made it go down the Ajax route, & absolutely no one made it try to do go down the wheels/medium weight/Strike route at the same time as the traditional tracked formations were already in bad shape and in need of fixing up.

Anyway, what's done is done, but the result is an Army that can't easily deploy itself an in operationally relevant timeframe, & would get swatted like a bug if it did vs the most menacing threat. I cannot stress that enough, the current armoured capability absolutely is not credible as it stands, so this isn't a case of cutting something that works.

So given limited funds, how do you fix this over a 10-15 year timeline? Would it be the worst thing in the world to spend the available funds trying to fix up all the other problems (buy a load more HETS, rebuild some railway capacity, fund some Royal Artillery programmes, & fix up SHORAD + ISTAR....), and then come back to the tank market in 10 years? In the mean time you could fiddle with the Ajax variants & get a 100 or so proper "light tanks" with 120mm cannon (GD pitched this to the US recently, think it was called a Griffin 2 or something). Give up the strike concept, but get a "medium plus" division, less heavy than the Armoured Brigades of today but massively upgunned & stronger than the planned Strike Brigade. Warrior CSP also gets binned & the turrets from that programme put on Boxer.

Alternatively, keep Chally 2, do the LEP, but can the whole Strike concept. Warrior CSP goes and the turrets go on Boxer (as proposed above). Ajax slots back into the armoured brigades in its conventional recce role, as originally planned way back in the day. You haven't saved as much money & still have something of a deployability problem, but at least you have something coherent to build on in the form of reasonably decent armoured brigades which it shouldn't take TOO much effort to get up to standard, now that the overambitious Strike concept has been abandoned.

[RetroSicotte]

Could someone educate me on what constitutes a tank generation?

There is a vague, nebulous attempt across some parts to define tanks in "generations" similar to fast jets. As of yet there has been no cohesive rule on what is or isn't, and it varies country by country, with many fanboys of each nation using their own country's scale to move up or down or around.

The wikipedia entries on what "defines" a generation are also horrifically inaccurate with no clean line. Simply put, no such thing exists in any worthwhile comparison, since what defines a good or bad tank isn't some arbitrary line of "has this or that" since a tank's worth is determined by far more detail.

So given limited funds, how do you fix this over a 10-15 year timeline? Would it be the worst thing in the world to spend the available funds trying to fix up all the other problems (buy a load more HETS, rebuild some railway capacity, fund some Royal Artillery programmes, & fix up SHORAD + ISTAR....), and then come back to the tank market in 10 years?

As I see it, yes, it would be, because Challenger 2 isn't a vehicle in isolation.

If you lose Challenger 2, then you likely lose CRARRV, Trojan, and Titan due to becoming far too unique a fleet to keep going (The CRARRV especially, since it's a CR1 chassis). If you lose them, then you've lost the capabilities they provide that have no similar equivalent in the forces and it would cost even more to get them back. How much would another assault breacher vehicle cost? Another armoured bridgelayer? Another heavy vehicle tow? How much does that add on to reacquiring a new vehicle once you change chassis?

How long would it take to regain the heavy logistical training and skills to move large units? How many supporting infrastructures for such large vehicles would be lost in a decade and a half?

Tanks are more than just MBTs to an army, they are part of a heavy broad capability and supporting arm that provides many more services and roles than just a big gun. Start removing parts, start changing chassis, start requiring to buy it all anew from scratch, you're running into an Astute or QE position where you're not just buying a single vehicle, you're buying a whole national capability. That's the bit all this is ignoring by focusing so much on losing "gun tanks" and forgetting what else it means to lose the 60 tonners.

It's why the upgrade is so importantly relevant. Because if you upgraded CR2, then you get to keep CRARRV, Trojan, Titan, the Driver Trainers, the supporting logistics, the embedded training knowledge, the simulators, the decades of experience.

Ask how much it'd be to replace ALL of that. Go with Leopard and you'd need to buy Bergepanzers, Kodiaks, Leguans.

Go with Abrams you'd need to buy Wolverines, Assault Breachers, and then wonder what the hell you do for armoured recovery since there are none for that chassis.

[Lord Jim]

So what should the Army do? Retain and modernise two Armoured Infantry Brigades and scrap the "Strike" Brigades, scrap the Armoured Infantry Brigades and properly equip and structure three "Strike" Brigades, or try to do everything as planned but not fully funded? If it takes the last option either the Army is going to shrink in order to properly fund the modernisation and procurement of equipment for the two types of formation or we will end up with four Brigades which are not properly reorganised and equipped and not viable on the battlefield.

The best solution I can come up with is one similar to that mentioned above. I would scrap both the Warrior CIP and Ajax, freeing up around £4Bn before contractual compensation etc. I would create three Brigades each with one, three Squadron Challenger 3 Armoured Regiment and three Boxer equipped Mechanised Infantry Regiments. Boxers and MRV(P) would carry out the duties in the Armoured Regiments currently carried out by CVR(T) variants. Obviously additional versions of the Boxer would be required such as a Mortar Carrier and Precision Fires, Recce, and I would suggest transferring the Starstreak SHORAD system to a Boxer mission module as well. Whether we up gun the Boxer would depend on available funding, but a heavy, long range ATGW is essential to supplement our existing stocks of Javelin, and these should be mounted on an version of the Boxer. There already exists an unmanned mom penetrating turret fitted with a CTA40 developed in France that can be made to take a ATGW for future consideration.

These three Brigades plus an Artillery Brigade of two 155mm SP Regiments, two GMLRS/HIMARS Regiments, a SHORAD Regiment and a ISTAR Regiment. This would be the core of 3rd (UK) Division.

[Ron5]

Current plans will result in a heavy element with up to date Challenger 2's supported by up to date Warrior IFV's and brand new Ajax as reconnaissance/forward screen. Yes, artillery is weak but there are programs in place for new self propelled 155mm and up to date MLRS. Air defense has brand new Sabre plus the Stormer HVM is due to be replaced in the next few years presumably with either a Boxer or Ajax based system.

True that not everything will be there as soon as we would like and numbers are low but decades of under investment, as in any enterprise, cannot afford to be fixed overnight. It takes time especially as the UK industrial base has been allowed to wither and is painfully getting back on its feet.

So why all the angst? I'm no expert but that looks like a quality capability. Once again, too small and slow in arriving but surely will be superbly equipped?

[RetroSicotte]

Current plans will result in a heavy element with up to date Challenger 2's supported by up to date Warrior IFV's and brand new Ajax as reconnaissance/forward screen. Yes, artillery is weak but there are programs in place for new self propelled 155mm and up to date MLRS. Air defense has brand new Sabre plus the Stormer HVM is due to be replaced in the next few years presumably with either a Boxer or Ajax based system.

True that not everything will be there as soon as we would like and numbers are low but decades of under investment, as in any enterprise, cannot afford to be fixed overnight. It takes time especially as the UK industrial base has been allowed to wither and is painfully getting back on its feet.

So why all the angst? I'm no expert but that looks like a quality capability. Once again, too small and slow in arriving but surely will be superbly equipped?

I'd say moderately well equipped if it all comes up with what you say. There's still big lackings (Boxer brigades remain horrifically undergunned without a Chally around) but ultimately, I'd rather the "jam tomorrow" comes in the form of "further variants and numbers" rather than a "jam tomorrow" consisting of "we'll get you that capability back mabye sometime".

In short: I'd rather they retain a smaller, properly equipped force, than a larger one that cannot fight.

Will that result in cuts to manpower? Maybe? I don't know and can't say, but having the ability to hold ground and force ground with tanks is not something that should be given up so easily. There's no good answer here, and the Government and Army equally share the blame for not just picking a logical route and sticking to it years ago.

[Ron5]

I was just referring to the heavy end. I don't understand Strike. Given the many conflicting definitions available, not sure many do.

I did forget Apache & Wildcat which again, with plans in place to get up to date, present real quality.

Once again, ignoring numbers (purely caused by lack of money) & timescale (caused by history of neglect), not sure who will be better equipped.

[Zero Gravitas]

1. What is the Army for?

2 What is the Doctrine?

3. What platforms do we need?



It's not obvious to me that anyone can answer these questions currently. The current approach seems to start with 3, then try to fit 2 around 3.

No one thinks too much about 1 at all.

[RetroSicotte]

The question of "do we need tanks" is not included in that though.

It's exactly as daft as asking "do we need men with rifles?" or "do jets need air to air?" It's a core component. It's not some optional extra.

[Lord Jim]

If it is decided to "Ring fence" the Challengers then the same must be said for the Heavy Engineering platforms of the Royal Engineers. However all other tracked platforms cannot be classed as essential and can be got rid of if that becomes necessary as they could be replaced by wheeled platforms. This would fall in line with the idea of the Army being lighters and more flexible, with effective units being able to deploy with or without the Challengers dependant on the OPFOR present.

[RetroSicotte]

If it is decided to "Ring fence" the Challengers then the same must be said for the Heavy Engineering platforms of the Royal Engineers. However all other tracked platforms cannot be classed as essential and can be got rid of if that becomes necessary as they could be replaced by wheeled platforms. This would fall in line with the idea of the Army being lighters and more flexible, with effective units being able to deploy with or without the Challengers dependant on the OPFOR present.

There is no "idea of armies becoming lighter and more flexible thus tanks should be dropped" though.

The UK would be the only. The ONLY country in the world suddenly deciding that tanks are obsolete and too heavy and shouldn't be used. Look atthe US, Russia, China, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Autralia, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Canada, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Egypt, Algeria, Morroco, Turkey, Greece, Czechia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Finland.

EVERY major military country in the world thinks otherwise. Many of those have more experience in this than the UK in this day and age too. They are all coming to the same conclusion. The UK cannot suddenly think itself to know better and be special.

I am pretty convinced this is the usual "apocalyptic cuts leaks" crap we always see that always gets proven wrong, but I am stunned by the amount of people who seem to be arguing for cuts.

[mr.fred]

I am pretty convinced this is the usual "apocalyptic cuts leaks" crap we always see that always gets proven wrong, but I am stunned by the amount of people who seem to be arguing for cuts.

I sometimes wonder if its something to do with tanks (used properly) being a workmanlike, efficient, way of fighting a war. No dash and elan.
The “what you do instead” always seems to involve the enemy co-operating with you in the execution of the ideal engagement where cleverness wins the day and no mud or blood is needed to get to the green fields beyond.

[military]

I like the ideas above. People on other forums act like Warrior CSP is cancellable but Ajax and Boxer are not, so let me take that as true and propose Warrior is dropped because of alleged technical issues, the need to save money in defense, the lack of hunter/killer capability and the lack of anti-tank missiles. I won't propose new variants of Ajax and Boxer to save money.

I also buy the arguments that upgrading Challenger 2 with a new turret and armour from Rheinmetall is overall cheaper than buying new Leopard 2s from KMW. As money is an issue, I will keep only the two regiments of MBTs that seem to exist now, if the King's Royal Hussars indeed lack vehicles in this time of transition.

Based on the current announced Army 2025 plans, that leaves us

Four battalions of Boxer infantry
Two regiments of Challenger 3 MBTs
Four regiments of Ajax, many with turrets

That is ten battalion equivalents of combat vehicles. They can allow us to make two armoured infantry brigades of one MBT regiment, one Ajax recce regiment, and one Boxer battalion each. And there could be one Strike brigade of two Ajax recce regiments and two Boxer battalions.

It would not be a huge crisis if an armoured infantry brigade is deployed with a second Boxer battalion stolen from another brigade.

Is it ideal to send wheeled APCs alongside tracked MBTs in battlegroups and task forces? No, but the French do it so the army will live.

For the strike brigade, would it be better to drop one regiment of Ajax and replace it with a third Challenger regiment, making it an armoured infantry brigade with four battalion equivalents? Sure, but I don't know if the Ajax contract allows cancellations or changes.

[SD67]

The Australian army is buying a realistic number of M1’s off the shelf for under a billion. You make your choices

I'll let the more expert reply to your other objections to tanks but you really need to stop spouting this nonsense that buying M1's or Leopards are cheaper than upgrading Challenger.

Firstly, check how much the Australians are having to spend to upgrade their M1's to a point they can actually be deployed. As many countries have found to the cost, buying cheapo used tanks isn't the greatest of bargains when you add in all the necessary expensive refurbishing & upgrades.

Secondly, the Treasury has exercised the question of new tank vs upgraded CH2's extensively & repeatedly. Each time the upgraded program comes out to be a lot cheaper.

So please drop it, the cheaper option is upgrade. Period.

Well would you like to share the figures with me? BTW I’ve never said “cheaper” as there’s no such concept in
project costing. “Better lifetime value” is the term Id use

And I wonder what is the denominator in the calculus? Cost per what? Per platform? or Per year if service? Per day of availability?

We had this exchange before. The consensus is a Leo2 or M1 would cost roughly 10-11million GBP each brand new. Estimates for upgrade CR2 vary all over the shop but the latest leaks are around 1.5 bn for only 140 vehicles. ie within 10-20% and that’s assuming it can be delivered. Reality is once you open the tin on an old platform you find another 20 clapped out sub systems that need upgrading. The word “Nimrod” springs to mind. Costs will rise.

But the key is that’s cost PER PLATFORM. How many years would you really get out of CR2 upgrade vs Brand new M1/Leo2? What would the availability be in practice? An orphan product powered by an engine developed by Leyland in the 1950s?

Please also bear in mind this is not the first time this has happened. Nimrod already mentioned. Warrior. SA80 upgrades cost more than buying new. There’s a pattern emerging. The only way CR3 makes sense is if there’s a new build CR4 being planned and we want to maintain the skills to gear up for that so you do a limited upgrade to de-risk so systems, but I doubt it that would be assuming the MOD have a long term plan

[SD67]

Frankly I wouldn’t give the army another penny until they get their house in order and prove they can deliver something.

Does cutting your nose off to spite your face work?
How can the Army deliver anything with their funding cut?

Would you care to consider how well the Army does compared to other Government departments?
HS2, Crossrail, and NHS IT projects spring to mind.

ETA:
I was just watching the CDS answering questions on defence. Annualisation of budget and consistency of people in posts were two points he was most interested in.

Point is they had a shot, in fact multiple shots and they blew it. FRES TRCER AJAX etc. They could have had VBCI or CV90 of the shelf and instead they decided to p**s 6 billion up against a powerpoint presentation. At least RN and RAF know what they want. I’m not saying army shouldn’t get tanks IFVs etc I’m saying that after 20 years and billions worth of screw ups they’ve forfeited the right to choose which one. It’s like watching a never ending soap opera. So here you go - MOTS or nothing, end of. Copy the Australian army. Or give the funds to the other services.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

The UK would be the only. The ONLY country in the world suddenly deciding that tanks are obsolete and too heavy and shouldn't be used. Look atthe US, Russia, China, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Autralia, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Canada, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Egypt, Algeria, Morroco, Turkey, Greece, Czechia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Finland.

While I won't debate the point you make about tanks in particular, though I do have my own thoughts on the matter, the nations you refer to here are, for the most part, false comparissons. Of those listed, the only nation with even a remotely comparable set of strategic circumstances to the UK is Japan, possibly also Australia by virtue of being an island nation, but then you also have to consider their vast landmass.

For nations which share one or more land borders, in many cases sharing borders with hostile regional states/geopolitical competitors, I think the case for tanks is far more clear and this is what you see when you cite the chosen examples above.

[RunningStrong]

The UK would be the only. The ONLY country in the world suddenly deciding that tanks are obsolete and too heavy and shouldn't be used. Look atthe US, Russia, China, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Autralia, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Canada, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Egypt, Algeria, Morroco, Turkey, Greece, Czechia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Finland.

While I won't debate the point you make about tanks in particular, though I do have my own thoughts on the matter, the nations you refer to here are, for the most part, false comparissons. Of those listed, the only nation with even a remotely comparable set of strategic circumstances to the UK is Japan, possibly also Australia by virtue of being an island nation, but then you also have to consider their vast landmass.

For nations which share one or more land borders, in many cases sharing borders with hostile regional states/geopolitical competitors, I think the case for tanks is far more clear and this is what you see when you cite the chosen examples above.

Surely you could argue the same of USA or Canada too? Neither is likely to be invaded on their land mass, but the tank is part of their power projection (and NATO participation).

Given that we've just procured two aircraft carriers at huge expense, it would be a weird time to redefine our position on overseas power projection, when arguably an improved home fleet would provide better self protection.

[RetroSicotte]

While I won't debate the point you make about tanks in particular, though I do have my own thoughts on the matter, the nations you refer to here are, for the most part, false comparissons. Of those listed, the only nation with even a remotely comparable set of strategic circumstances to the UK is Japan, possibly also Australia by virtue of being an island nation, but then you also have to consider their vast landmass.

For nations which share one or more land borders, in many cases sharing borders with hostile regional states/geopolitical competitors, I think the case for tanks is far more clear and this is what you see when you cite the chosen examples above.

If the UK didn't need tanks, it wouldn't have been such a core component of its strategy since its inception. This argument of "The UK doesn't ened tanks" completely ignores the possibility of fighting anywhere except the UK itself. If the UK is already fighting on its own shores, then it's already lost the war.

If you want to complete on a modern contempary battlefield, you need heavy armour. No other major nation in the world has seen otherwise.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

If the UK didn't need tanks, it wouldn't have been such a core component of its strategy since its inception. This argument of "The UK doesn't ened tanks" completely ignores the possibility of fighting anywhere except the UK itself. If the UK is already fighting on its own shores, then it's already lost the war.

If you want to complete on a modern contempary battlefield, you need heavy armour. No other major nation in the world has seen otherwise.

I agree with the premise of the need for being able to fight beyond our own shores, but I think the question of how we might do that is up for debate. To consider the place of the tank in our unique context is a reasonable line of enquiry to my mind.

Before we can make any judgement on the ongoing utility of tanks to the UK, you need to properly tackle more fundamental questions about our overarching military strategy. What is it we hope to do/what are our objectives? Where? In what time frame? Against whom? Alongside whom? What effects do we need to generate to accomplish our objectives? What is our role within the NATO structure?

All of this is for minds far cleverer and more knowledgeable than my own, but for what it is worth, I have felt for some time that our entire strategic outlook is very skewed/disconnected and in major of root and branch reform.

[RetroSicotte]

I agree with the premise of the need for being able to fight beyond our own shores, but I think the question of how we might do that is up for debate. To consider the place of the tank in our unique context is a reasonable line of enquiry to my mind.

Before we can make any judgement on the ongoing utility of tanks to the UK, you need to properly tackle more fundamental questions about our overarching military strategy. What is it we hope to do/what are our objectives? Where? In what time frame? Against whom? Alongside whom? What effects do we need to generate to accomplish our objectives? What is our role within the NATO structure?

All of this is for minds far cleverer and more knowledgeable than my own, but for what it is worth, I have felt for some time that our entire strategic outlook is very skewed/disconnected and in major of root and branch reform.

People keep saying this "we need to ask ourselves about what we hope to achieve."

It's an easy answer. Without heavy armour, you can't achieve anything on a modern battleline. You might as well ask "Do we reeeeally need artillery?" or "Do we really need infantry?" They are a core component of a modern fighting force. It's not some optional extra. Once again, not a single major NATO military has given them up and not immediately regretted it and gone back on the decision, and that was just in "light" conflicts. How do you think they'd have gotten on in a heavy one?

If the British Army saw fit to have to use Challengers to take on an enemy who merely had T-55s, then you can bet they know very well what happens when you try to advance on an enemy with T-72B3s when all you have is a bunch of Boxers with 50 cals.

As I've said, there's a lot of "hmms" and "haahs" and not a lot of realising that this isn't us talking about whether we really need Spear EW, or V-22s, or submarine AShMs, or an extra drone type, or SSKs, or ATGM overwatch, or HIMARS. This is a core pillar of what an army is. It's like asking the Navy to get rid of their anti-air destroyers entirely because "we have to ask ourselves if all we want to do is ASW". No-one would seriously entertain that.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

Surely you could argue the same of USA or Canada too? Neither is likely to be invaded on their land mass, but the tank is part of their power projection (and NATO participation).

Given that we've just procured two aircraft carriers at huge expense, it would be a weird time to redefine our position on overseas power projection, when arguably an improved home fleet would provide better self protection.

Canada I would agree, they are a bit of an outlier. The US' outlook/requirement I would argue is defined more by is geopolitical ambitions/interests than by is geography.

In any large scale, continental conflict the UK contribution will be a relative side show even as compared to our European partners, regardless of whether we field heavy armour.

With this in mind, and given our own specific defence interests, I'm simply advocating the need for a debate around what an effective UK contribution could and should look like.

[~UNiOnJaCk~]

People keep saying this "we need to ask ourselves about what we hope to achieve."

It's an easy answer. Without heavy armour, you can't achieve anything on a modern battleline. You might as well ask "Do we reeeeally need artillery?" or "Do we really need infantry?" They are a core component of a modern fighting force. It's not some optional extra. Once again, not a single major NATO military has given them up and not immediately regretted it and gone back on the decision, and that was just in "light" conflicts. How do you think they'd have gotten on in a heavy one?

If the British Army saw fit to have to use Challengers to take on an enemy who merely had T-55s, then you can bet they know very well what happens when you try to advance on an enemy with T-72B3s when all you have is a bunch of Boxers with 50 cals.

I really don't believe that debate is as settled as you make it our to be if for no other reason than the question is entirely dependent upon your aims.

Traditionally our aspiration has been to commit a large scale ground force, that largely mirrors the capabilities of our key partner (US), as a major component of the buffer against the states of the former Warsaw PACT. Perhaps then it was a laudable and reasonable requirement, I would ask the question as to if such a requirement serves our best interests today? I'm not sure it does.

This is not to question our involvement in NATO, that's beyond question. But, as I said, how should we contribute to NATO in a way that best serves our security interests, offers genuine utility to our allies/partners and is realistic financially?

I'm not convinced that heavy armour is the way forward for us on that front. Perhaps we'd take a hit to our political capital for it, but I believe if we ended up with a more realistic and more coherent defence posture for it, it might just be worth it.

[RetroSicotte]

Actually, I'll just delete mine here and we'll just say we agree to disagree on that.

Suffice to say, I feel this would be an objective cut with no upside, but that it feels unlikely, this is the silly season after all.

[mr.fred]

Point is they had a shot, in fact multiple shots and they blew it. FRES TRCER AJAX etc. They could have had VBCI or CV90 of the shelf and instead they decided to p**s 6 billion up against a powerpoint presentation. At least RN and RAF know what they want. I’m not saying army shouldn’t get tanks IFVs etc I’m saying that after 20 years and billions worth of screw ups they’ve forfeited the right to choose which one. It’s like watching a never ending soap opera. So here you go - MOTS or nothing, end of. Copy the Australian army. Or give the funds to the other services.

I can understand that you are upset and angry at the waste of money, and wish to punish someone, but who are your punishments going to hurt? It’s unlikely to catch those responsible. If you do remove the choice from the Army, who would choose?

Your £6bn figure includes what? I recall a figure of £500m for FRES up to the SV contract, which is less than the £1bn the RAF wasted on MRA4 or the £2bn the RN wasted on delaying the carriers.

And the Australian army is buying bespoke kit and paying to have it built in country.

[mr.fred]

How many years would you really get out of CR2 upgrade vs Brand new M1/Leo2? What would the availability be in practice? An orphan product powered by an engine developed by Leyland in the 1950s?

I don’t know, but it’s a pointless question because you can’t have a brand new M1 or Leopard 2. They are all refurbished tanks a decade at least older than CR2.
That and the CR2 is powered by a Perkins engine.