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 (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote: the removal of the T-80s from service has been delayed (again!) as far as i know and the T-90 line has earned yet another reprieve. As for the T-14s technologies
While we are writing with the same msg, let me just...
- say that T-80s are being pulled out of storage for modernisation, to make up for the numbers of Armatas that ARE NOT coming
- T-90 is ongoing, and that was the plan anyway
- it is the T-72B3s (and the equivalents) that were meant to fade away, from under the T-14/ T-90 combo
.... and will be going strong for the foreseeable future (for reasons now known to all of us; but to few Russians? They still have a wunderwaffe, and know nothing about where the state monies, meant to recapitalise that enterprise - an expert in rolling stock - actually went
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 (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

I think that there may be quite a lot of T72B3s in that mix.

Fortunately for the Russians, they don't seem to have a problem with two piece ammunition, older and less capable sights and the need to add appliqué armour, when the same problems make the Challenger 2 so obsolete that an A13 cruiser would be an upgrade.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:So, we are doomed!
- I have not noticed any veritable sources quoted for these "facts"?
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:I'd like to see some sources for those figures as from what i have seen and heard, they are wildly optimistic, especially in regards to Armata. Put it this way, the removal of the T-80s from service has been delayed (again!) as far as i know and the T-90 line has earned yet another reprieve. As for the T-14s technologies, as we alluded to a few pages back, much of it entirely unproven beyond the glossy world of marketing.
As you wish:

It's known that Russian possesses around 1,900 active T-72 tanks, with 150 in their leading division. Those in the war ready status are being disassembled as the remaining T-90's, T-72's and T-80's are being upgraded to T-90M, T-72B3/B3M and T-80BVM respectively.
http://www.janes.com/article/74263/russ ... -programme

"According to the plans, all T-72 tanks will be converted to the B3 standard."
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... rcise.html

There is also a program to upgrade at least 150 of the T-72B3s to T-72B3M status.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_ ... 03163.html

CHARM3 is doubtful against Kontakt-5 already, Relikt is from the T-14. The very tank the MoD themselves admitted is beyond the CR2's lethality.

T-80BVM is also getting Relikt.
http://www.military-today.com/tanks/t80bvm.htm

T-90 is also being upgraded to T-90M, also featuring Relikt and the gunsight from the same. It's a universal upgrade.
https://rg.ru/2017/07/21/reg-cfo/rossii ... -tank.html

In short:
- All T-72's being upgraded to T-72B3
- 150 of the T-72B3 being upgraded to T-72B3M
- T-80BV being upgraded to T-80BVM
- T-90 being upgraded to T-90M.
- Perhaps 100 T-14 in existence

The "M" is essentially the designator of Relikt, new gunsights and new ammunition, in addition to other upgrades. Essentially moving T-14 protection and technology onto the T-72, T-80 and T-90. T-14 also has it.

To underestimate it because of the "lol Russia uses ancient crap tanks and relies on numbers" thing is naive. Their tanks are lethal, as they've been upgrading constantly, while the MoD has barely done anything with CR2 since 1993.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Thanks for clarifying the use of the "M" designator as the number of types is bewildering. E.g. T-72B3M ( T-72B3 obr. 2014) is not the same at all asT-72B3 obr. 2016. B3M is a SPECIAL EDITION to show off in the"Tank Biathlons" since 2014, i.e to impress.

The first linked article from Janes is laughable (often the expert writes the text and then a busy senior gives it the title). The title reverses causation. It is the Armata failure that has caused the extensive modification prgrms, not that they would endanger the Armata prgrm
- the article states 70 Armatas by 2019
- as we know that the army took delivery of 50 prototypes for trials, BEFORE they said "no more" until the faults already found in the design have been rectified
- so I take it that 70-50=20 gives the number of new edition prototypes that will be trialled again (by or from 2019)

OK, not to make this too long, I post this one and will read through the other linked articles.
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 (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote:"According to the plans, all T-72 tanks will be converted to the B3 standard."
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... rcise.html

The Russian T-72B3 tanks have been tested during Zapad 2017 Russian-Belarussian strategic exercise. This is the first time the tanks were tested in a large-scale training event. The first batch of 20 upgraded vehicles entered service with the Western Military District of the Russian Army in February.
- 20 OF THE NEW in use

There is also a program to upgrade at least 150 of the T-72B3s to T-72B3M status.
https://www.armyrecognition.com/russia_ ... 03163.html
- so the show edition will be followed by 150 production CONVERSIONS and won't feel lonely
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)

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Cheers for the links. Without reference to yourself, RS, i am still not entirely convinced. The comments made regarding Russia's MBT programmes are still only speculative for the time being, suggesting that the Russian Army would like to do XYZ with this, that and the other tank fleet. Whether or not any of their plans ever materialise is another matter entirely and, as i alluded to, the political noise coming from Moscow with regards to budgets and what not, suggests otherwise at the moment.

Remember, Russia "planned" to induct over 2000 vehicles from the Armata programme. Russia "planned" to regenerate its carrier capability with an entirely new platform(s). Russia "planned" to have the Su-57 rolled out to operational units in numbers next year. Russia "planned" to restart production of the Tu-160 line. Point i'm getting at is, much of what Russia has planned regarding is modernisation programmes have struggled to get off the ground or have been dramatically scaled back in ambition.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Thanks for clarifying the use of the "M" designator as the number of types is bewildering. E.g. T-72B3M ( T-72B3 obr. 2014) is not the same at all asT-72B3 obr. 2016. B3M is a SPECIAL EDITION to show off in the"Tank Biathlons" since 2014, i.e to impress.

The first linked article from Janes is laughable (often the expert writes the text and then a busy senior gives it the title). The title reverses causation. It is the Armata failure that has caused the extensive modification prgrms, not that they would endanger the Armata prgrm
- the article states 70 Armatas by 2019
- as we know that the army took delivery of 50 prototypes for trials, BEFORE they said "no more" until the faults already found in the design have been rectified
- so I take it that 70-50=20 gives the number of new edition prototypes that will be trialled again (by or from 2019)

OK, not to make this too long, I post this one and will read through the other linked articles.
Yep, there are pretty significant factual errors in many of those sources, not to mention the speculative nature of much of their content. For example, IIRC, the B3 has already seen service in Ukraine as of this year (possibly as early as 2016, though i don't know the exact chronology) so it is hardly the "fresh off the production line" model the first link claims it to be.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

The opening gambit of 1700 T-72s is a big number. Leaving the T-90s outside the discussion, that fleet would seem to field 150 top notch conversions and 200 new production upgrades (of which 10% have been delivered).

The T-80s were only just pulled out of storage and I am sure they will be fine machines when the upgrades get done; when would that be?

There no doubt that even a T-90S is a competent tank, and the M upgrade to it will make it better.

Throw in the T-14 prototypes and all of the above, once delivered will number under or about a thousand. The rest of their fleets will be as they are today.
RetroSicotte wrote:In short:
- All T-72's being upgraded to T-72B3
- 150 of the T-72B3 being upgraded to T-72B3M
- T-80BV being upgraded to T-80BVM
- T-90 being upgraded to T-90M.
- Perhaps 100 T-14 in existence

The "M" is essentially the designator of Relikt, new gunsights and new ammunition, in addition to other upgrades. Essentially moving T-14 protection and technology onto the T-72, T-80 and T-90. T-14 also has it.

To underestimate it because of the "lol Russia uses ancient crap tanks and relies on numbers" thing is naive. Their tanks are lethal, as they've been upgrading constantly, while the MoD has barely done anything with CR2 since 1993.
There is a problem, or two:
- the 2nd generation thermal sights, quoted in some of the linked articles; do they match Catherine MPs (as in Mega Pixels)?
- and as per the bolded end statement in the quote, it is time for our MoD to get off its thumbs in this matter (why does it take 2 years for prototyping??). And the Germans have added to the damage by being politically correct and shelving the development of their long-rod penetrator round for political correctness (depleted uranium) when the Berlin Wall came down. Thus the alternative, new round can only be used in Leo A7s (plus the 200 to- be- modernised to the Leo2A7 standard... again by when??... even taking the 16 Dutch Leo2A6s back to active use seems to be a big story - as they are part of 1st Panzer - so that's about a company's worth and can be used to plug one major road crossing :eh: ).

Just saw the one from UnionJack: " For example, IIRC, the B3 has already seen service in Ukraine as of this year (possibly as early as 2016, though i don't know the exact chronology) so it is hardly the "fresh off the production line" model the first link claims it to be."
So, to dive back into the minutiae (Just when I thought I had coined a smashing ending statement):

Both of the "other B3 models" in the quote below were preceded by the B3 conversions, so chronologically the report on new ones rolling off from the factory - in effect, a production restart stemming from the Armata "failure" - should be correct
" T-72B3M ( T-72B3 obr. 2014) is not the same at all as T-72B3 obr. 2016. The B3M is a SPECIAL EDITION to show off in the"Tank Biathlons" since 2014"
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 (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Good stuff, guys. I personally believe that determining exactly which versions of them are the ones to be wary of is the real first step. A T-72A is a world away from a T-72B3M after all.

With T-72B3/B3M, T-80BVM and T-90M being the ones to track as the ones that are at a stage of at minimum serious threat to the Challenger's lethality, the issue becomes a lot simpler in a determining of "how many" as opposed to "which ones?" It cuts down the issues on figuring out the real threat a lot. I personally err on the side of 'assume the worst, prepare with the best' at all times. History has proven the British Forces under-prepared through lack of development so many times that I am unwilling to ever want to rest on any laurels, especially when in this case the laurels are nigh-25 years old.

If anything, the core point of what I am trying to say is that just because it has "T-72" in the name (for example) is absolutely not a determinator on it being some 70's tank. They're as different as the M1A2 Abrams SEPv3 is from the M1 Abrams, or the Leopard 2A7 from the 2A0.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote: the issue becomes a lot simpler in a determining of "how many" as opposed to "which ones?"
Agreed.

Then we don't have this Zapad like thing, simply the fact that 10 or 14 times the number of railway carriages were "booked" compared to the one 4 yrs previously set out a media storm that kept feeding itself, and Kremlin got much more benefit from the exercises than otherwise
- no one is going to go back and check if only 20% of the "movements" ever manifested themselves on the ground
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)

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Yep another example of how the Russians seems to be able to pull our chain as and when they feel like it and we hit the panic button.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Lord Jim wrote:Yep another example of how the Russians seems to be able to pull our chain as and when they feel like it and we hit the panic button.
There's a vast difference between analysis of specific information, and dismissing everything Russian as a bunch of nothing.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I was really referring to the Russians making the exercise seem far bigger by letting the info about how much railway stock they needed be made available when they actually used a much smaller mount. Suddenly everybody starts jumping up and down "The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming!" Why is it so many "Experts" seem to be taken in by the Russian's. Look at the forecasts of how the new generation of Russian AFVs was going to make NATO obsolete, and that they were going to be manufactured in the hundreds each year.

We are now going down the same route with the upgrade programmes the Russians are planning. There is certainly room for the Russians to upgrade their T-72 inventory, but they can only do so much, especially when it comes to passive protection against KEPs. The programmes will also be slow, as appears to happen to all of their "major" upgrades and it well probably be in the dozens rather than hundreds each year at the most. Sure will see many pretty photos and probably see them parading in Moscow next May, but the Russian military has only a few choice units that are fully manned and equipped to try to compete with NATO. NATO's real worry is whether the alliance will actually do what it is supposed to if things go south or will voices, many Germanic, respond to any covert or overt military action with only words rather than action.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by seaspear »

Apologies for going off thread but is there a possibility that the delay in development of a new tank could be the development in remote controlled vehicles which the aim of is to be "as hard hitting as the Abrams" ,the scenarios for these rcv,s are to be controlled by a main tank scouting forward to areas of danger, its believed two remote vehicles now with an aim of up to four, ergonomically would these need a four manned crew to manage these , this is a few years away ,but the timeline for design and introduction of a new tank and which is the preferable system could be interesting.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Shades of FRES/FCS in that description.
As such it's an approach to which I would advise a degree of caution. This is something that should be investigated but not relied upon. As such it fits in with my preferred approach to the design of the next generation of 'heavy' armour, which is to focus on process and common components to produce similarly protected and mobile vehicles to fulfil roles within the armoured battlegroup. Key to testing the RCV concept, as I can see it, is the availability of gun tanks with substantial automation and "drive-by-wire" controls and similarly protected and mobile IFVs to act as control vehicles. By using gun tanks capable of manned operation, you retain the capacity to revert if the experiment doesn't play out the way you want. By deriving a process to design a vehicle around common components, you have the ability to rapidly design a different chassis to re-use the expensive stuff (powertrain, sights and vetronics) if the concept works in practice and you want to capitalise on the advantage of an unmanned combat vehicle in terms of size and weight.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

seaspear wrote:Apologies for going off thread but is there a possibility that the delay in development of a new tank could be the development in remote controlled vehicles which the aim of is to be "as hard hitting as the Abrams" ,the scenarios for these rcv,s are to be controlled by a main tank scouting forward to areas of danger, its believed two remote vehicles now with an aim of up to four, ergonomically would these need a four manned crew to manage these , this is a few years away ,but the timeline for design and introduction of a new tank and which is the preferable system could be interesting.
There is no such program going on with any country in this respect, no. It's decades away.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

RetroSicotte wrote:

There is no such program going on with any country in this respect, no. It's decades away.
Which is a similar time frame for replacing Challenger 2 and Warrior, so probably worth thinking about in that context, albeit with a wary eye.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by seaspear »

I was quoting the article from Defence talk in the interview with Major Alan L Stephens about remote controlled vehicles.the article came out on December ninth

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

RCVs with a role similar to a MBT are more than decades away. Like UCAVs replace Fighter in the A2A role, until they have far greater self awareness/autonomy it just doesn't really work. There are other roles, again comparable to UCAVs that RCVs could do sooner rather then later, such as hauling cargo.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by seaspear »

Remote vehicles were used in the defences of the Normandy beaches,lately the Russian army have promoted their Vikhr,Kord,and Uran9 vehicles certainly the British army is promoting the Terrier combat engineering remote vehicle

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

seaspear wrote:Remote vehicles were used in the defences of the Normandy beaches,lately the Russian army have promoted their Vikhr,Kord,and Uran9 vehicles certainly the British army is promoting the Terrier combat engineering remote vehicle
None of them fulfill the roll of an MBT, or anything close to it though. The Russian ones especially are barely functional smokescreens to push propaganda imagery of Russia being 'ahead' in that area. Same as the nonsense they put out about the T-14 having a 152mm cannon variant or it being autonomous if they wanted.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by seaspear »

I relied on the article from army news services by Dvid Vergun quoting Mjor Alan L Stepenson an acquisitions Corps officer for mounted requirements who spoke at the future ground combat vehicles on Nov 30 , certainly he spoke positively on developments in the short term I would recommend googling this article.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

seaspear wrote:I relied on the article from army news services by Dvid Vergun quoting Mjor Alan L Stepenson an acquisitions Corps officer for mounted requirements who spoke at the future ground combat vehicles on Nov 30 , certainly he spoke positively on developments in the short term I would recommend googling this article.
They can say what they will, but the simple fact, unfortunately, is that the technology simply does not exist and has no such official programs in any country. People at events talk (as LordJim said) about UCAVs replacing manned flight, but that isn't any closer either.

zanahoria
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by zanahoria »

Is this tweet posted by N. Drummond a development that could potentially address the obselensce issues with C2?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

I doubt it.

As a note, the MoD put out a requirement for the Thermal Sights replacement to be brought ahead of 2023 (when LEP occurs) due to it becoming obsolete much faster than they thought.

Funny how they worded it, given the way it uses its thermals was obsolete 20 years ago already...

Post Reply