FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Is it slightly concerning that both upgrade teams are now working as one... Or do I need to take my tin foil hat off
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
There is no confirmation that they are yet.Little J wrote:Is it slightly concerning that both upgrade teams are now working as one... Or do I need to take my tin foil hat off
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I think this is due to a combination of two things, one the BAE Systems consortium has lost the upgrade contract and two RheinMetall need somewhere to build the boxer for MIV.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Nothing to do with the UK end of things. Thats all Sweden.Ron5 wrote:What about CV90?
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Agreed, this is all about the MIV/Boxer rather then anything to do with the CR2 upgrade programme. I wish the Defence Select Committee would have a session asking those involved what is the state of the Army's AFV re-equipment plans as many seem to be up in the air or moving so slowly they almost appear to be standing still.
As for proposals for the CR2 upgrade, I still think we could do a lot worse than getting second hand Leopard 2 and having them upgraded either by the OEM or Rheinmetall who have their own upgrade package. Given what the Poles paid for theirs including the upgrade, spares and so on it would be interesting to see if we could get enough vehicles to meet the Army's needs from roughly the existing programme budget. Around 120 should do? Then we wait for the next generation platform to come along either from the US or Europe in the 2030s.
As for proposals for the CR2 upgrade, I still think we could do a lot worse than getting second hand Leopard 2 and having them upgraded either by the OEM or Rheinmetall who have their own upgrade package. Given what the Poles paid for theirs including the upgrade, spares and so on it would be interesting to see if we could get enough vehicles to meet the Army's needs from roughly the existing programme budget. Around 120 should do? Then we wait for the next generation platform to come along either from the US or Europe in the 2030s.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1344
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
3 of the 4 teams bidding Land 400 Ph3 would then be "working together" on CR2 LEP. I don't believe that for a second.Little J wrote:Is it slightly concerning that both upgrade teams are now working as one... Or do I need to take my tin foil hat off
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Lord Jim wrote: have a session asking those involved what is the state of the Army's AFV re-equipment plans as many seem to be up in the air or moving so slowly they almost appear to be standing still.
- nothing for the tanks ( a motley collection)Lord Jim wrote: Given what the Poles paid for theirs including the upgrade
- and e 5 mln to get something workable out of them ( per piece)
Let's play this one for the 11th time ( a first for this forum? Where is that Naval Architect that used to preach 'Religion' on TD... has he retired; you know building ships and doing the military fitting out cannot be separated... called modularity these days )Ron5 wrote:What about CV90?
- the bid was the best one
- BAE had "solemn" undertakings with various host countries (following their take-over, or as the blue-eyed 'natives' saw it: a "stewardship" of AFV manufacturing)
- they were 'torn'
- they switched from Sweden to UK (manufacturing %) in the last moment (or was it after the decision?)
- that was not good enough
- the rest is history
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Dunno what you are talking about, I was inquiring whether the status of CV90 was altered by the tie up between Bae & Rheinmetal.
Seems to be unaffected was the answer I got.
Seems to be unaffected was the answer I got.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Sorry about not seeing what your question was about. A lot of the little bear with a little brain quotes have been flying about... latelyRon5 wrote:I was inquiring [...]
the tie up between Bae & Rheinmetal.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Is this a game of 5... to be reduced?
No, it was the German side (Rheinmetall, as for staying in AFVs) that was under pressure and went into the agreement,
RetroSicotte wrote:
Where does it say about the CR2 upgrade?
What else is there, to play for?
so:
GD, Atlanticist ( )
BAE, Atlanticist ( )
KNDS, not-so-so Atlanticist
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Second hand from who though?Lord Jim wrote:As for proposals for the CR2 upgrade, I still think we could do a lot worse than getting second hand Leopard 2 and having them upgraded either by the OEM or Rheinmetall who have their own upgrade package. Given what the Poles paid for theirs including the upgrade, spares and so on it would be interesting to see if we could get enough vehicles to meet the Army's needs from roughly the existing programme budget. Around 120 should do? Then we wait for the next generation platform to come along either from the US or Europe in the 2030s.
The only second hand 2A5 or higher on the market was from the Netherlands as far as I am aware, and all theirs were bought already. Germany is bringing their own 2A6s back into service, so they aren't available.
There is zero worth getting the ones before the 2A5, their base hull is riddled with huge errors that the 2A5 (partially) fixed and are a massive mishmash of minor variations that have cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.
Would need a lot more than 120 as well. 200 minimum really to have a robust fleet depth. Heck, even France is finding 200 isn't enough to maintain worthwhile readiness levels of a certain weight, and they only get away with that because they have another 206 in storage, similar to ourselves to draw from when needed.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
e 5 mln a piece vs. our £700 mln divided by X ( the MoD being very coy about what "X" will be)RetroSicotte wrote:cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
That 5 mil apiece is only the tip of the iceberg for them, unfortunately. They've had to pay a lot more to constantly fix problems related to their fleet being made up of "whatevers" from the old A4 variations.ArmChairCivvy wrote:e 5 mln a piece vs. our £700 mln divided by X ( the MoD being very coy about what "X" will be)RetroSicotte wrote:cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.
For example, the A4 had three separate armour models, two separate hull models, three separate transmission layouts (despite having the same one!), two separate turret ring allowances, countless variations in internal systems from major to minor.
It's been a complete mess.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
You are obviously more "glued in" on this than I am; why did the German contract to get their tanks (already sold back to the manufacturer, for export) back into service stretch for so long... 3-4 years?
I am suspecting that the rounds that only the A7 can handle have something to do with it
... and that could have something to do with the latest Ch2 LEP news, as well
I am suspecting that the rounds that only the A7 can handle have something to do with it
... and that could have something to do with the latest Ch2 LEP news, as well
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I'm not aware of a round that only the A7 can use. Maybe you know something I've missed there, but the DM63 can be used in any Rm120 I think. It's basically a DM53 with changed internals to the round. As I said, maybe there's something I dunno about its other ammunition. (Data linked one to the A7 perhaps?)ArmChairCivvy wrote:You are obviously more "glued in" on this than I am; why did the German contract to get their tanks (already sold back to the manufacturer, for export) back into service stretch for so long... 3-4 years?
I am suspecting that the rounds that only the A7 can handle have something to do with it
... and that could have something to do with the latest Ch2 LEP news, as well
The time I don't have a concrete answer on, other than perhaps being a mixture of politics (keep the place in work after the big Gulf A7 contract fell through) and reduced capacity. German Army sure isn't in a rush for it, with their budget problems.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1749
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Spotted this on Twitter:
Rheinmetall's Challenger 2 LEP technology demonstrator
Rheinmetall's Challenger 2 LEP technology demonstrator
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
That would be a Rm120 L55 smoothbore, that'd be!
-
- Member
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Bit more info on the above posted image via twitter
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Yes its does. BAE UK still control the purse strings and get the final say on development of new vehicles and systems. A fact that has hamstrung and driven the Swedes crazy multiple times at least since the introduction of the CV90 MKIII .RetroSicotte wrote:Nothing to do with the UK end of things. Thats all Sweden.Ron5 wrote:What about CV90?
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
That is a damn good question. I'm guessing right now the management at Hägglunds and maybe also Bofors is frantically scrambling to find potential new owners.....everything to avoid coming under kraut influence......because the Swedes know all to well what happens when under german ownership!Ron5 wrote:What about CV90?
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
But not what Rheinmetal got. This is a different thing entirely to BAE in Sweden, Rheinmetal/BAE in the UK has no say over it, only the "core" BAE.MikeKiloPapa wrote:Yes its does. BAE UK still control the purse strings and get the final say on development of new vehicles and systems. A fact that has hamstrung and driven the Swedes crazy multiple times at least since the introduction of the CV90 MKIII .
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Ahh...you've been listening to Damian again i see ..(or Sturgeons House forum....they are equally bad!).....isnt it funny that the Poles seemingly had/has all these problems with their A4s yet when you actually talk to polish tankers they cant recognize any of these issues. And why havent we heard anything about these seemingly "YUUUGE" problems from all the other users of the A4 model, Finland, Sweden(STRV121-no longer in use), Spain, Chile etc..?RetroSicotte wrote:That 5 mil apiece is only the tip of the iceberg for them, unfortunately. They've had to pay a lot more to constantly fix problems related to their fleet being made up of "whatevers" from the old A4 variations.ArmChairCivvy wrote:e 5 mln a piece vs. our £700 mln divided by X ( the MoD being very coy about what "X" will be)RetroSicotte wrote:cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.
It's been a complete mess.
I'll also note that when we (DK) bought our first batch of 51 A4s in 1998, they were from 6 different production batces(from 81'-85'), yet we encountered none of these issues before we had them upgraded to A5DK standard.....
Yes there are slight differences and variations between the various production lots......but in 90% of the cases the parts are the same.
,For example, the A4 had three separate armour models
Allegedly!.....that is if you believe all the so called "leaked" documents on the Leo2 that very conveniently popped up recently .....i dont
No such thing......that hull is the same in all models, save for the placement of the return rollers, which changed once in the pre A4 versions.....meaning there are 2 configurations, but with the same rollers, track and everything so it has no impact on maintenance or operation whatsoever.two separate hull models
There is a grain of truth to this, but it isnt really the layout that differs but only the design of the internal disc brakes (used at speeds <20mph) which became stronger in newer transmissions......was changed again in some A5 and A6 models (Leo2A5DK, Strv122, and Leopardo 2E, Leo 2A6HEL)....none of which has much impact on operations.three separate transmission layouts (despite having the same one!),
This is complete hyperbole from a moron (damian)who doesnt have any actual experience on the Leopard 2 or any tank for that matter and who gets 99% of his information from 2nd or 3rd hand sources or the internet ......whatever variations exist is at worst minor and inconsequential.countless variations in internal systems from major to minor.
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
And what "huge errors" would that be, i wonder? Also like to know what was only partially fixed.RetroSicotte wrote:There is zero worth getting the ones before the 2A5, their base hull is riddled with huge errors that the 2A5 (partially) fixed
No offence , but i'd take what the poles have to say with a truck load of salt!.....especially knowing the likely source.and are a massive mishmash of minor variations that have cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.
-
- Member
- Posts: 106
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Maybe.....for now at least......However having thrown their lot in with Rheinmetall and OCCAR/ARTEC, BAE UK have no interest in protecting their Swedish subsidiary and the germans are hell bent on gaining consolidation and complete dominance in the european land defence business. If i were head of Hägglunds i would be calling SAAB right about now.RetroSicotte wrote:But not what Rheinmetal got. This is a different thing entirely to BAE in Sweden, Rheinmetal/BAE in the UK has no say over it, only the "core" BAE.MikeKiloPapa wrote:Yes its does. BAE UK still control the purse strings and get the final say on development of new vehicles and systems. A fact that has hamstrung and driven the Swedes crazy multiple times at least since the introduction of the CV90 MKIII .
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Well as far as I am concerned the Rheinmetall version is a winner and beats the BAe offering hands down. It seems to solve the issues with obsolete electronics and FCS whilst also addressing the issues with the Rifled 120mm. If the turret is built in the UK as well it will only not win if the MoD is directed to pursue the BAe option by the Politicians. Saying that BAe isn't exactly the MoD's favourite AFV manufacturer.