FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
zanahoria
Member
Posts: 234
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 22:21
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by zanahoria »

Should we just switch to Leopard then, with the possibility of engineering/design collaboration with the Germans? Or throw our lot in with the US and the Abrams?

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 »

The Leopard 2A7 wouldn't be much cheaper than just getting M1A2s, but its all about what variant you get.

The M1A2 SEPv3 is a literal world away from the basic M1A2. Just as the Leopard 2A7 itself would still require some changes to be adequately protected.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Mounting the gun was never really the problem in the first place. Stowage for ammunition was.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Ron5 »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Mounting the gun was never really the problem in the first place. Stowage for ammunition was.
If I read it right, he was suggesting fitting the entire turret which would solve the turret ammo storage problem. Would it not?

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 »

Ron5 wrote:
~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Mounting the gun was never really the problem in the first place. Stowage for ammunition was.
If I read it right, he was suggesting fitting the entire turret which would solve the turret ammo storage problem. Would it not?
Fitting the Leopard's turret definitely wouldn't work. The Leo 2 turret only carries 15 rounds in its turret. The remainder are kept in a hideously unsafe frontal ammo rack in the crew compartment. Similar to the Challenger's hull storage. (Although somewhat worse, as while the Challenger's are in armoured wet bins in the middle of the tank, the Leo's are sitting quite literally to the right of the driver!)

The Challenger hull couldn't fit this into its internal shape.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RunningStrong »

I think Rheinmetall will genuinely find a way to make 120mm smooth bore a realistic possibility on the CR2, I just don't think it'll be practically or financially viable to MoD.

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Zealot »

RunningStrong wrote:I think Rheinmetall will genuinely find a way to make 120mm smooth bore a realistic possibility on the CR2
They already have, they want to replace the entire turret. Yeah... Not gonna happen. The remodeling of existing turrets during CLIP was already deemed too expensive.

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by james k »

British Army 408 delivered (227 still in service, including 59 used for training or held in reserve) So what happened to the balance of the vehicles? They've not been scrapped or sold have they?

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Zealot »

118 were placed in storage after the 2010 cuts, that's 404; plus one lost in Iraq is 405. No idea about the last 3.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by benny14 »

227 + 118 removed in 2010 = 345

Any idea what happened to the other 62? Hopefully they are in storage somewhere. Also hoping the latest batch to get scrapped with the armored brigade are put in storage encase we need them in the 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 »

Zealot wrote:No idea about the last 3.
Have both of the two bidding consortia (for the modernisation) been given a live tank, to play with?

One in the back room of Bovington, while :D they are preparing the display stand for it?
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)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by dmereifield »

benny14 wrote:227 + 118 removed in 2010 = 345

Any idea what happened to the other 62? Hopefully they are in storage somewhere. Also hoping the latest batch to get scrapped with the armored brigade are put in storage encase we need them in the future.
Any chance they might reverse the decision to reduce the numbers in the on-going review?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Timmymagic »

dmereifield wrote:Any chance they might reverse the decision to reduce the numbers in the on-going review?
Zero. Nada. The best we can hope for is no further disposals.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by benny14 »

dmereifield wrote:Any chance they might reverse the decision to reduce the numbers in the on-going review?

Not unless they decide to keep the armored brigade, which will only happen if they remove one or both of the strike brigades. Even if we wanted to, I dont think we can afford not to because we are not upgrading enough Challenger and Warriors.

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 »

benny14 wrote: because we are not upgrading enough Challenger and Warriors.
Always look on the bright side...

In 2014 the numbers sought for Warriors looked like this
"Jun 23, 2014 - Within that group, 449 vehicles (69.8%) will also get the WFLIP program's new turret and weapon system. The remaining ABSV Warriors will be turretless, and carry out field repair and recovery roles using winch and crane attachments."
and there was a worry about finding enough hulls in mechanically reasonable condition.

With the shaving of the bdes with MBT rgmnts down to just two, the need for the turreted Warriors is now for just 4 AI bns and BATUS + some RA versions (to keep the REME job doable within fielded units), so that worry should be one of the past
- the optimist would say that ABSV could be re-scoped to include Mortar & Ambulance variants? The abundance of riches... lots of hulls and not much money :roll:
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 »

I must be out of touch here, as I thought the Armoured Infantry Brigades were to comprise one Armoured and three Armoured Infantry Battalions each. Is the forth battalion to be a Recce Regiment with Ajax as I thought the idea of including "Protected" Battalions had been ditched?

Is the Warrior tall enough to be a simple conversion to a mortar carrier? I am sure this has been raised in the past, with the conclusion that unlike the Fv432, the mortar could not be held in the ready to fire position due to the height of the compartment on the Warrior. My preference would be to either use MIVs in this role in both the Armoured and Mechanised Infantry or purchase a towed 120mm mortar, again my prefernece being the Brandt rifles weapon as used by many nations such as France the Netherlands and now the USMC. Far better than a standard 120mm with greater range almost equlaing the 105mm Light Gun and more powerful shell.

Using the MIV instead of Warrior hulls may involve more cash up front but it will save money and provide the Army with a better platform. I suppose a lot is going to depend on the now Full SDR instead of a SDSR, and how the MoD's finances are affected.

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

Under A2020 refine it's 1 tank regiment, 2 battalions on Warrior plus 2 Reserve battalions paired and no Cavalry as all Ajax regiments are swallowed by Strike.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by benny14 »

Gabriele wrote:Under A2020 refine it's 1 tank regiment, 2 battalions on Warrior plus 2 Reserve battalions paired and no Cavalry as all Ajax regiments are swallowed by Strike.
Did not know that. Is there going to be AJAX attached to the tank regiments in a scout role?

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 »

Gabriele wrote: plus 2 Reserve battalions paired
Are those 2+2 as per the 2013 announcement, or have there been adjustments (as to which and where those units are)?

As for Benny's -above - we are now going to have "divisional" recce as the bdes are bereft of such an element. Or "self recce" if only a Strike Bde is deployed.
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 (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

I'm not aware of anything more than the usual recce platoon of 8 within Chally and Warrior units. Unlikely to be more, light even be less: Ajax was procured to build up 3 Cavalry regiments, one per armoured Brigade. Now they Plan For four regiments, two in each Strike Brigade. Same number of vehicles, with only "saving" coming from 1 tank and 2 Warrior units canishing. You do the math.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:
My preference would be to either use MIVs in this role in both the Armoured and Mechanised Infantry or purchase a towed 120mm mortar, again my prefernece being the Brandt rifles weapon as used by many nations such as France the Netherlands and now the USMC. Far better than a standard 120mm with greater range almost equlaing the 105mm Light Gun and more powerful.
8km or 13km with a special shell vs 17km or 20km with a a special shell. Doesn’t sound terribly equivalent to me. In either case, wouldn’t a towed artillery piece be desperately vulnerable as part of an armoured formation?

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Gabriele »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Gabriele wrote: plus 2 Reserve battalions paired
Are those 2+2 as per the 2013 announcement, or have there been adjustments (as to which and where those units are)?

As for Benny's -above - we are now going to have "divisional" recce as the bdes are bereft of such an element. Or "self recce" if only a Strike Bde is deployed.
No, the 2013 Plan is gone. The pairings are:

5 rifles with 7 rifles
1 fusiliers with 5 fusiliers
1 Welsh with 3 Welsh
1 mercian with 4 mercian

Yorks and PWRR lose Warrior.
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 (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gabriele wrote: Ajax was procured to build up 3 Cavalry regiments, one per armoured Brigade. Now they Plan For four regiments, two in each Strike Brigade. Same number of vehicles


I think the number was pretty much fixed in the earlier iteration, when the roll-out plan (call it Plan1) was for 5 rgmnts (each with one heavy and two light sqdrns), to equip the 5 MRBs - which then met their sudden death. I guess one could describe the year in-between these two Junes as utter and complete chaos:
1. " Approval was re-
endorsed by the new Coalition Government
in June 2010. The contract with General Dynamics UK Ltd commits to the Demonstration Phase for
Recce Block 1 only"
AND
2. " The Recce
Block 1 Planning Assumption for Service Entry was also deferred by nine months
due to a Strategic Defence and Security Review savings option. The enduring need for the Specialist Vehicles
project was noted in an Information Note to the Investment Approvals Committee in June 2011."

Thereby we ended up with service entry Plan2 (with Strike Brigades now being Plan3):


"Draft definition for FOC is when the
3 Brigades receiving the capability
have completed conversion training,
and Force Driving Defence
Operational Liability (FDDOL) is
complete.FOC forecast improved to June
2025"

All quotes from NAO...so I assume the material has been thoroughly :) checked.
Gabriele wrote:
And thanks for this one!

The pairings are:

5 rifles with 7 rifles
1 fusiliers with 5 fusiliers
1 Welsh with 3 Welsh
1 mercian with 4 mercian

Yorks and PWRR lose Warrior.
Forever an optimist, those hundred or so lost (bolded above) will pay for the ABSV coming back to life ;)
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 »

France, along with other users of the 120mm Brandt use "Shoot and Scoot" procedures to minimise being in the open. The Brandt can be brought into action as fast as an 81mm Mortar and the key here is that I am talking about having this level of indirect firepower integral at battalion level, with the Artillery using either SP or towed 155mm together with GMLRS. This represents a considerable step up in fire support of formations.

As for the Army's restructuring, it is still a moss and if it tries to operate above Brigade level it is all gong to come apart as to form an effective force, they are going to have to chop and change units like crazy.

And whilst all this is gong on the Challenger sustainability programme to all intents and purposes is in limbo written on a post it note in some General's office.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:France, along with other users of the 120mm Brandt use "Shoot and Scoot" procedures to minimise being in the open. The Brandt can be brought into action as fast as an 81mm Mortar and the key here is that I am talking about having this level of indirect firepower integral at battalion level, with the Artillery using either SP or towed 155mm together with GMLRS. This represents a considerable step up in fire support of formations.
Any sane operator will shoot and scoot with any artillery piece unless the enemy has no counter battery capability. The Brandt is bigger and heavier than an 81mm and its ammunition, and the army uses the 81mm mounted. If 120mm is what you want, then a mounted version would seem preferable?
And whilst all this is gong on the Challenger sustainability programme to all intents and purposes is in limbo written on a post it note in some General's office.
Isn’t it in a competitive prototype phase?

Post Reply