FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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: supporting elements go because these reviews aren't about capability
While I agree with you, this time around there is a blunt weapon around, with which to counter the craziest ideas:
"What will this do to Global Britain?"
Lord Jim wrote:cannot see the Vikings going and the Bv206s are up for replacement with the latest version of the Viking the leading contender
One being protected mobility and the other not ( a logs/ support platform), one could claim other, cheaper contenders
- I just want to see how they would get around in a meter of snow; any 'advance' force, in the form of Royal Marines, becoming road bound would be absurd
- there is a reason for the original Archer platform looking like it was/ is: the 1 m snow was part of the spec or rqrmnt
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)

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

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

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:As for looing to Japan (Type 10) or South Korea (K2), both these are very expensive platforms, probably the most expensive platforms actually. If we decided to go for new build the only real option would be a version of the Leopard 2A7, but if the figure of £12M per tank for the CR2 LEP is accurate, it will be far cheaper than any possible nee vehicle.
The numbers I’ve been able to browse up suggest that all new or upgrades are fairly similar in price and that the £12m for CR2 is extreme high end. What price estimates have you been using?

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

Are there signs internationally that development of heavy tanks are on pause, there was the U.S interest in the replacement of the Abrams with the XM1202
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Co ... d_Vehicles,
Is there a possible view of a medium type tank that is easily moved by air quickly and can maneuver better than heavily armoured tanks and that such vehicles protected by Elbits Iron fist for example may be able to accomplish the same objectives as the tank .
Would such operators have the advantage of getting these vehicles to distant theatres quicker because of the easier logistics?

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 »

seaspear wrote:Is there a possible view of a medium type tank that is easily moved by air quickly and can maneuver better than heavily armoured tanks and that such vehicles protected by Elbits Iron fist for example may be able to accomplish the same objectives as the tank .
Would such operators have the advantage of getting these vehicles to distant theatres quicker because of the easier logistics?
I don't believe so, because the moment it encounters actual MBTs coming the other way, it'll crumple like wet paper. Iron Fist doesn't do much against a nearly meter long rod of depleted uranium moving at almost 1.7km a second.

APS is quickly becoming an essential supplement on main frontline vehicles, due to the rise of ATGMs, but it isn't a replacement for armour as that approach would invalidate the primary benefit of an MBT's staying power in the face of direct fire.

The program linked was effectively cancelled. The few images we've seen of potential future US tanks look a lot like an Abrams still, just with some different turret concepts.

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:crumple like wet paper. Iron Fist doesn't do much against a nearly meter long rod of depleted uranium moving at almost 1.7km a second.
Agreed... it is all about having a mix; and then re-mixing them at battle group level for any task on hand
- but as I have been saying for the last 5 yrs; the Big Gun is back, thx to APS
- and, the piercing qualities within a given caliber will reach their limit (130, not if - but when?
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 »

I wonder how vulnerable these APS systems are on a battlefield. Seem kinda fragile.

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: APS systems [ are] on a battlefield. Seem kinda fragile.
Yes, the Armata was coming out looking like a Xmas tree... the sensor bit is the vulnerability.

Good old shrapnel (the great Somme mistake) will ride again? Perhaps gene mutated, in some way
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 »

It already happens. Tanks getting CITVs and daysights shot out is moderately common today, and has been for a long time. Challenger 2, Abrams, and Leclerc all had this happen to them, Russian ones too (although you don't hear about it).

APS is just the next part of that. The Israelis didn't have too much trouble with it. It being there caused a dramatic reduction in impacts.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news ... ergy-round
This article suggests that iron fist has some capability against anti-tank 120mm kinetic rounds but of course how that as any protection works in a real engagement is of interest

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 »

A slight problem:
"a later presentation by Rheinmetall Protection Systems[, which indicated] that an APS with a 200 W-radar system could be detected from a range of 500 km by electronic intelligence assets."
You can switch it on when expecting to engage; but if it not 'on' then could be ambushed, without being aware of being under threat.
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)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

The article suggests that "Iron fist" had addressed that problem ,I understand the Russian T-14 can deploy a thick muti spectral smoke that amongst other things masks millimetre radar emissions , apologies for going off-topic with my comments .

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

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

Post by jedibeeftrix »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A slight problem:
"a later presentation by Rheinmetall Protection Systems[, which indicated] that an APS with a 200 W-radar system could be detected from a range of 500 km by electronic intelligence assets."
You can switch it on when expecting to engage; but if it not 'on' then could be ambushed, without being aware of being under threat.
the same problem faced by air defence assets since Harm was invented (if not before).

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 »

Aye. Even if you do get the odd ambush, you'd have gotten ambushed with or without the APS anyway.

The vast majority of heavy conflict zones are ones you know you're going into. And once the first shot is fired, you turn it on anyway.

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: once the first shot is fired, you turn it on anyway.
of course, but covering "the 500km" in a round-about way first, to OpFor's flank
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)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

Doesn't flanking require a higher degree of speed and maneuverability over terrains that sometimes does not lend to heavy tracked vehicles ,

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 »

Only the Qattara depression stopped Rommel from repeating his party trick?
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)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1779
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

This is an article from 2014 perhaps showing the directions of research in tanks and armour then is it known if this line of direction was continued ?
http://www.defence-and-security.com/fea ... r-4483944/

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 »

seaspear wrote:This is an article from 2014 perhaps showing the directions of research in tanks and armour then is it known if this line of direction was continued ?
http://www.defence-and-security.com/fea ... r-4483944/
Ceramics were used in armour construction long before 2014 really, and are still used since. They're often a component in layered composites.

Electric armour was discontinued because it was simply impractical compared to ERA and bar-slat.

military
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 08 Aug 2020, 23:15
United States of America

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

Post by military »

Here are some thoughts on the Challenger 2 replacement or upgrade.

1. The new tank should be upgradeable in another 15 years. This does not favour the Rheinmetall replacement of the CR2 turret, as this turret would be likely a boutique option for Britain and so a future upgrade would require new R&D.

2. Leopard 2A7 is said to have the same armour as the Leopard 2A5 from 1995. If true, this is an armour package that entered service three years before Challenger 2. This outdated armour puts Leopard 2 behind recent Russian tanks like T-72B3, T-90M and T-14. Some sort of armour upgrade would be needed, like Sweden and Switzerland did in the 1990s for Leopard 2, which might be cost prohibitive for Britain.

3. Ideally, an active protection system like Trophy would be included, although that is expensive.

4. South Korea is proposing a new version of its Black Panther, called the K2PL, for Poland. The pictures released suggest added armour. I wonder if buying from South Korea instead of Germany would be cheaper and result in a better protected, more recent tank.

5. The new Abrams SEP v3 may be the only western tank that has armour comparable to the top Russian tanks. It would likely be pricy for the UK to acquire.

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

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

Post by Tinman »

You do understand that the M1 uses British armour?

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 »

military wrote:The new tank should be upgradeable in another 15 years. This does not favour the Rheinmetall replacement of the CR2 turret, as this turret would be likely a boutique option for Britain
But the Ch3 will not be a new tank. While I agree with the c.15 yrs from the day we start to get the upgrades, by that time the Franco-German, US and Israeli nxt-gen prgrms will have delivered - or been cancelled - and we would be much the wiser to choose our own; perhaps a family as with the ever changing plans for armour renewal, the original point of departure was that Ch2/3 and Warrior would bow out together c. 2040.
military wrote:Leopard 2A7 is said to have the same armour as the Leopard 2A5 from 1995. If true
Certainly not as far as the turret is concerned. Turkey offers AMAP armour ( a German product) based rebuilds for German Leopards, so would be hard to believe that it would be the sole offer
- and going back to to the to-and-fro about tank costs, that commercial offer comes in at e5 mln a piece, assuming that you have the hulls. Finland had that as the top option for their hundred Leos, until they bought another hundred ( of high spec) Leos from the Dutch give-away for a mln each. And did a massive refurb: changed the radios! And kept the older Leos to support other than the fully mech bdes; more like Stg III than Pz IV, if you think of a corollary as for their functions and use
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)

jedibeeftrix
Member
Posts: 509
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:54

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

Post by jedibeeftrix »

military wrote: 4. South Korea is proposing a new version of its Black Panther, called the K2PL, for Poland. The pictures released suggest added armour. I wonder if buying from South Korea instead of Germany would be cheaper and result in a better protected, more recent tank.
but more importantly:

to operate a tank also used by a major nato ally who will provide the logical forward basing home for nato deterrence.

poland.

lodz military district.

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 »

military wrote:1. The new tank should be upgradeable in another 15 years. This does not favour the Rheinmetall replacement of the CR2 turret, as this turret would be likely a boutique option for Britain and so a future upgrade would require new R&D.
What makes you think it's not upgradable?
2. Leopard 2A7 is said to have the same armour as the Leopard 2A5 from 1995. If true, this is an armour package that entered service three years before Challenger 2. This outdated armour puts Leopard 2 behind recent Russian tanks like T-72B3, T-90M and T-14. Some sort of armour upgrade would be needed, like Sweden and Switzerland did in the 1990s for Leopard 2, which might be cost prohibitive for Britain.
This is not true.
3. Ideally, an active protection system like Trophy would be included, although that is expensive.
There's already two separate APS programs in the UK regarding "main" vehicles. The only reason it hasn't been declared on which is the Army barely even knew what vehicles it'll definitely have. Pic below:
Image
4. South Korea is proposing a new version of its Black Panther, called the K2PL, for Poland. The pictures released suggest added armour. I wonder if buying from South Korea instead of Germany would be cheaper and result in a better protected, more recent tank.
A core part of the Government is in demanding local industry, whether it's of a worthwhile amount or not. That would likely delay the program somewhat. Also, it's impossible to say "better protected" given the protection levels between the 2A7M level and K2PL level are utterly unknown to anyone not in the program itself.
5. The new Abrams SEP v3 may be the only western tank that has armour comparable to the top Russian tanks. It would likely be pricy for the UK to acquire.
What do you mean by "Top Russian tanks?" Also note that armour vs armour isn't a matter of "who has the most mm's", it's far more complex than that and often comes down to a better question of "can your armour resist their firepower while your firepower outmatches their armour?" which is a totally different set of affairs.
Tinman wrote:You do understand that the M1 uses British armour?
It doesn't. When the UK gave the US Burlington 1 long ago, GD has created several new armours since, using new research uniquely in the US. By this point it'll be unrecognisable to the original British designwork they were given.

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 »

Just to continue from my e5 mln a piece upgrade (with new optics and FCS thrown in), here's a before and after piccie https://i2.wp.com/tanknutdave.com/wp-co ... ard-2t.jpg
- so the rumoured £12 mln for each Ch2 (make-over) sounds a bit high
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Just to continue from my e5 mln a piece upgrade (with new optics and FCS thrown in), here's a before and after piccie https://i2.wp.com/tanknutdave.com/wp-co ... ard-2t.jpg
- so the rumoured £12 mln for each Ch2 (make-over) sounds a bit high
Betting the under on a UK defense procurement?? Wow that's brave :lol:

By the way, you know what happened to tank nut Dave, right?

Post Reply