FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

[sol]

No contact broken push all challengers thru bae to equip them for deployment to Ukraine granted won’t be the same as the current upgrade but times a different.

Yea, right ... because those tanks sent to Ukraine will have Thales sights, and all other stuff that RBLS contracted other companies to provide for intended upgrade. And price for preparing tanks for Ukraine will be the same, for sure. And all that work on turret so far just like money spent on it, definitely not wasted. It is more like coping and hoping that there will no legal issues than guaranties there would not be one.

The Army has no replacement for Warrior, hopping that it can sell Boxer with 50 cal as IFV, Ajax still in testing, artillery in desperate need to be either modernised or replaced, MRV-P barely mentioned now and constantly postponed as there is luck of funding ... so what is a smart thing to do? Cancel tank upgrade, leave 9 units without any heavy equipment, and pay way more for a fleet of tanks that will arrive somewhere in future and till then probably spend money for rented tanks to keep crews trained when new tanks arrive. Brilliant.

And yet, no explanation where to get money for new tanks.

[tomuk]

If you ask what I would set 2 conditions, 1 provided Ajax is given the decisions to go ahead and there is agreement from GD to fit a uk modular armour package and UK sight system then I would ask GD land systems to assemble and integrate M1 tanks at there facility in wales to follow on from AJAX, possibly to the x standard if the US goes down that route.

In the mean time and to cover, get 2 brigades set up on boxer as a medium mech capability which should offset BAEs contract worries.

In future the army then has GD looking after its heavy brigades with Abrams and Ajax and Bae the medium with boxer.

Why do GD deserve any extra work at their forklift factory after the complete failure of Ajax and the GD associated Morpheus comms upgrade isn't going well either.
I'd rather go the European route, based on the Rheinmetall JV with BAE, plus Rheinmetall's bumpy relationship with KMW, using Chally 3's new turret as stepping stone a RBSL Leopard replacement.

[Lord Jim]

The Boxers, at least some of them will end up being up gunned at some point. Adding Javelin could be the first step, but other nations have realised that a larger weapon than a .50 cal is needed for operations in peer or near peer conflicts. Funding is going to be the biggest hurdel though buying upgraded Mission Modules as and when apare funding can be found could be the way ahead, as long as an OTS option is chosen.

The Army may not wish to call an up gunned and more capable Boxer an IFV, but it is likely to end up being used more like one than a APC. The Boxer can keep up with the Challenger 2 and its successor so that is not a problem.

As for the Challenger 3 programme, I think that is we are only having two Regiments, we should have a fifth Squadron added to each manned by Reserves. This should allow greater flexibility within the Brigade and individual Battlegroups. 34 additional upgrades should be manageable if funding can be found.

But regardless of all of the above, the Army's transformation is still both not properly funded and being implemented too slowly. We should be aiming to have both Heavy BCTs fully equipped and operational to war fighting standard by 2030. Both should be at the same readiness levels that BAOR managed during the 1980s, as should at least one of the Light BCTs. TES kits should become a thing of the past with all platforms already being of that standard either fitted of in unit stores as should increased levels of ammunition and consumables This would also mean all platforms including the Challenger 3 and Boxer having a relevant APS available at all times. Finally we need either RLC or contractor provided HETs in greater numbers to allow the movement of our units to where they are needed as soon as possible as well as the MAN 6x6 or 8x8 transporting the ammunition and spares.

[SW1]

No contact broken push all challengers thru bae to equip them for deployment to Ukraine granted won’t be the same as the current upgrade but times a different.

Yea, right ... because those tanks sent to Ukraine will have Thales sights, and all other stuff that RBLS contracted other companies to provide for intended upgrade. And price for preparing tanks for Ukraine will be the same, for sure. And all that work on turret so far just like money spent on it, definitely not wasted. It is more like coping and hoping that there will no legal issues than guaranties there would not be one.

The Army has no replacement for Warrior, hopping that it can sell Boxer with 50 cal as IFV, Ajax still in testing, artillery in desperate need to be either modernised or replaced, MRV-P barely mentioned now and constantly postponed as there is luck of funding ... so what is a smart thing to do? Cancel tank upgrade, leave 9 units without any heavy equipment, and pay way more for a fleet of tanks that will arrive somewhere in future and till then probably spend money for rented tanks to keep crews trained when new tanks arrive. Brilliant.

And yet, no explanation where to get money for new tanks.

I gave u an explanation of where the money comes from part is money from the reserve to replace equipment donated in this case tanks ( happened with everything else).

Additional cash from within the defence budget (not having to support and maintain existing kit and funds allocated form the normal equipment budget in future years)

[SW1]

If you ask what I would set 2 conditions, 1 provided Ajax is given the decisions to go ahead and there is agreement from GD to fit a uk modular armour package and UK sight system then I would ask GD land systems to assemble and integrate M1 tanks at there facility in wales to follow on from AJAX, possibly to the x standard if the US goes down that route.

In the mean time and to cover, get 2 brigades set up on boxer as a medium mech capability which should offset BAEs contract worries.

In future the army then has GD looking after its heavy brigades with Abrams and Ajax and Bae the medium with boxer.

Why do GD deserve any extra work at their forklift factory after the complete failure of Ajax and the GD associated Morpheus comms upgrade isn't going well either.
I'd rather go the European route, based on the Rheinmetall JV with BAE, plus Rheinmetall's bumpy relationship with KMW, using Chally 3's new turret as stepping stone a RBSL Leopard replacement.

For two reasons, one so we aren’t dependent on a single supplier and two if we every have to go to a ground war that requires the use of heavy armour to regain ground then we will be contributing within an American division/corp.

[sol]

In future the army then has GD looking after its heavy brigades with Abrams and Ajax and Bae the medium with boxer.

So you want to replace CR2/CR3 by Abrams? Instead of upgrading current UK fleet, you want to buy upgraded current US tank as there is no more new Abrams? Why? What are you getting? They will not be built in UK as they already are existing, and they not be upgraded in the UK. They could have some British stuff inside but not nearly as CR3, so benefit for UK industry would be much less. And by 2040 they would either need replacement or new major upgrade just like CR3 would need. So what is a point, except drop money down the drain to refurbish all the tanks and IFVs for Ukraine and then spend even more money, literally twice as much, on the vehicle that does not provide significant if any improvement over CR3.

Additional cash from within the defence budget (not having to support and maintain existing kit and funds allocated form the normal equipment budget in future years)

Yes, additional cash in budget is so easy to find especially with so many competitive projects by Armed Force. I mean, for example, there is question of funding Type 32 frigates, but there must be some money for new tanks for sure. On top of previous budget for new tank from last year. Way on top of that.

And getting rid of the old equipment will definitely only benefit and not create issues like providing all those units that will lost equipment with proper stuff so they can do their task. It definitely will not create a need to obtain temporary replacement like buying or ranting vehicles (which someone could consider wasting money btw), especially in the case if order is delayed for whatever reason. There is no possibility of losing capability for long(er) time.

But I guess, saying that there will be money in budget without any guaranty for that is easiest thing as there were never issues with that. Definitely no chance for anything to cut spending for the Army, especially in today economy, right? So why just stop there, I mean there must be some money in defence budget for other things to

I wonder are we here talking about wishes or realistic stuff, because UK canceling CR3 and sending all tanks to Ukraine is definitely not realistic.

[Dahedd]

Part of me thinks we should just donate the entire C2 fleet & start afresh with Abrams or the new South Korean beastie.

[tomuk]

If you ask what I would set 2 conditions, 1 provided Ajax is given the decisions to go ahead and there is agreement from GD to fit a uk modular armour package and UK sight system then I would ask GD land systems to assemble and integrate M1 tanks at there facility in wales to follow on from AJAX, possibly to the x standard if the US goes down that route.

In the mean time and to cover, get 2 brigades set up on boxer as a medium mech capability which should offset BAEs contract worries.

In future the army then has GD looking after its heavy brigades with Abrams and Ajax and Bae the medium with boxer.

Why do GD deserve any extra work at their forklift factory after the complete failure of Ajax and the GD associated Morpheus comms upgrade isn't going well either.
I'd rather go the European route, based on the Rheinmetall JV with BAE, plus Rheinmetall's bumpy relationship with KMW, using Chally 3's new turret as stepping stone a RBSL Leopard replacement.

For two reasons, one so we aren’t dependent on a single supplier and two if we every have to go to a ground war that requires the use of heavy armour to regain ground then we will be contributing within an American division/corp.

So were are dependent on GD rather than RBSL?

[Tempest414]

The way I see it is all current NATO MBT's are coming to the end of there development time and new ones will be needed what we need to decide who we get into bed with on the next gen tank program

For now we need to upgrade 180 Challengers to allow for 3 regiments plus a Reserve regiment of 2 sqn's and get our heads down to the next task of the next gen tank

[sol]

The way I see it is all current NATO MBT's are coming to the end of there development time and new ones will be needed what we need to decide who we get into bed with on the next gen tank program

I agree. It is pointless to waste money on tanks like Abrams when even US is already considering its replacement. Get CR3 and already plan for its replacement when time comes. Who knows, maybe UK could decide to actually build their own tank, in cooperation with some other countries like Italy or Sweden for example. Or maybe join some other program or just wait till someone create something and buy it of the shelf.

For now we need to upgrade 180 Challengers to allow for 3 regiments plus a Reserve regiment of 2 sqn's and get our heads down to the next task of the next gen tank

The Army did requested 190 tanks to be modernized but there was no funding for it. Who knows, more could be upgraded later, but there is very little chance for it.

[Tempest414]

The way I see it is all current NATO MBT's are coming to the end of there development time and new ones will be needed what we need to decide who we get into bed with on the next gen tank program

I agree. It is pointless to waste money on tanks like Abrams when even US is already considering its replacement. Get CR3 and already plan for its replacement when time comes. Who knows, maybe UK could decide to actually build their own tank, in cooperation with some other countries like Italy or Sweden for example. Or maybe join some other program or just wait till someone create something and buy it of the shelf.

For now we need to upgrade 180 Challengers to allow for 3 regiments plus a Reserve regiment of 2 sqn's and get our heads down to the next task of the next gen tank

The Army did requested 190 tanks to be modernized but there was no funding for it. Who knows, more could be upgraded later, but there is very little chance for it.

Quite right but we live in hope and all things are on the move with each part of the War in Ukraine the next part looks to be needing tanks in armoured units so as we have seen with long range rocket artillery proving the need for more M270A2's this may prove the need for more tanks

[inch]

How many ch2 do we still actually have ,in storage,active , reserve etc ? Thought there's about 400 with 227 active, could be wrong, someone will tell me I'm sure hopefully,

[sol]

How many ch2 do we still actually have ,in storage,active , reserve etc ? Thought there's about 400 with 227 active, could be wrong, someone will tell me I'm sure hopefully,

There were 386, with 227 in active service. I don't think there is an official statement about those that were retired, I saw that some are mentioning 75 in deep storage and that some 80 are already scrapped for spare parts which would, more or less cover those 159. But keep in mind this is not officials, just rumors. Even tho, only 148 will be upgraded, UK will need more that that to cover for those which will be in process of modernisation, but also considering that KRH is still armoured regiment and would not be re-equipped with Ajax any time soon. So number of those that could be sent is quite limited, as there will be a need for steady delivers of spare part, which would mostly come from further stripping of tanks for those, and ammo, over prolonged period.

[SW1]

And they’re off! PM confirms challenger 2 tanks are being sent to Ukraine.

[Tempest414]

is it just the 10 tanks

We really need to push on now and upgrade 180 or 190 to Challenger 3 as we really do need 3 Armoured BCT's

[SW1]

is it just the 10 tanks

We really need to push on now and upgrade 180 or 190 to Challenger 3 as we really do need 3 Armoured BCT's

An initial commitment of 12 tanks

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-64274704

[Tempest414]

if the figures above are right i.e 227 + 75 in deep store then the max we can afford to give up is 40 leaving us 260 of which we need to upgrade 180 to 190

Now if we gave up 30 challenger and they could get there hands on 30 Leopard and 60 A1's they would be in good shape

[sol]

One thing I would like to know is that could all spare parts for CR3 be provided with new production or would they be dependent in any way on parts scrapped from retired CR2. Because if they do, then providing any larger number to Ukraine while keeping both their fleet and fleet of CR3 operational could be challenging. Turret should be new so there should not be problems but not sure about hull, or how much it will be upgraded.

[SW1]

But how many of those paper numbers are real numbers. The spreadsheets may say 200 odd tanks yet many say if they had to go to war even a brigade would be a struggle.

[Tempest414]

all good questions so as said the turret is new and the power pack and trans along with the suspension so quite a bit could be used to keep current UK and over seas kit going as it comes out of hulls being upgraded

[Tempest414]

But how many of those paper numbers are real numbers. The spreadsheets may say 200 odd tanks yet many say if they had to go to war even a brigade would be a struggle.

And that is why we need 180 upgraded if the army have allowed so many tanks to be out of sorts it is a pour show

[leonard]

Now is being confirmed 12 Challenger 2 MBT are going straight to the Ukrainian Army.

And the official press release

[SW1]

But how many of those paper numbers are real numbers. The spreadsheets may say 200 odd tanks yet many say if they had to go to war even a brigade would be a struggle.

And that is why we need 180 upgraded if the army have allowed so many tanks to be out of sorts it is a pour show

Or start again. One opinion on the upgrade underway

[Tempest414]

but there is nothing to replace them with as said all NATO MBT's are coming to the end and everyone is starting to move on the US is starting to look at replacing the A1 the French and Germans are looking at the next tank now. we are better sticking with the planned upgrade of Challenger and then working out which next Gen program to join

[SW1]

but there is nothing to replace them with as said all NATO MBT's are coming to the end and everyone is starting to move on the US is starting to look at replacing the A1 the French and Germans are looking at the next tank now. we are better sticking with the planned upgrade of Challenger and then working out which next Gen program to join

Poland for one would disagree as it’s ordered new tanks. There is two very clear industrial and modernisation directions that could be followed either the leopard user community or the Abrams one. We are taking short term, decisions rather than long term ones.