FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
All efforts by the Army should be concentrated on getting two Regiments worth of Challengers upgraded as per the Rheinmetall proposal. That should give us an MBT roughly on par with the Leopard 2A7V and the M1A2C when fully kited out. That will tide us over until the next generation of AFVs arrive in the 2040s.
Finding approximately £200M to fund this shouldn't be a problem unless money is taken out of the Defence Budget, the Army's slice being the most vulnerable, to fund improvements at GCHQ etc. Cancelling the Warrior CIP would cover than and reducing Ajax to around 150 hulls would also free up a substantial amount from the current £3.5Bn production contract.
Most of all the Army must get itself up to speed to defend its roles, organisation, and revised equipment plan in light of the Governments obvious shift in Defence policy.
Finding approximately £200M to fund this shouldn't be a problem unless money is taken out of the Defence Budget, the Army's slice being the most vulnerable, to fund improvements at GCHQ etc. Cancelling the Warrior CIP would cover than and reducing Ajax to around 150 hulls would also free up a substantial amount from the current £3.5Bn production contract.
Most of all the Army must get itself up to speed to defend its roles, organisation, and revised equipment plan in light of the Governments obvious shift in Defence policy.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Why would you want to maintain the MBT capability when you also want to cancel the IFVs?
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Probably the same logic that saw us purchasing aircraft carriers with minimal aircraft and escorts. Headlines over logic.mr.fred wrote:Why would you want to maintain the MBT capability when you also want to cancel the IFVs?
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
That's enough for about 20 tanks. New turrets do not come cheap neither do new optronics.Lord Jim wrote:Finding approximately £200M to fund this shouldn't be a problem
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I'd guess there's about a 1 in 20 chance that the upgrade would include a 130mm gun. Sure would be fun to see tho. Put the cat among the pigeonsArmChairCivvy wrote:130 mm... here we come (the awkward Armata turret arrangement us said to be ... for a 140mm gun . But they will have to get the whole thing working first. That said: we are never in a hurry, either, are we?).
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I overlooked this bit when the Griffin was 'announced'... was is at AUSA 2016?
" uses pieces of existing technology to lower costs and development time–and also return some investment to the Army for projects abandoned years ago. The Griffin's main gun is the XM360 120mm cannon that was designed at great cost under the now abandoned Future Combat Systems initiative. Remarkably, the gun weighs less than half the weight of the Abrams' 120mm cannon, but it packs the same punch. ."
- potential to have the same one on Challies, GD's UK-ised Griffins and Boxers (recoil permitting)?
" uses pieces of existing technology to lower costs and development time–and also return some investment to the Army for projects abandoned years ago. The Griffin's main gun is the XM360 120mm cannon that was designed at great cost under the now abandoned Future Combat Systems initiative. Remarkably, the gun weighs less than half the weight of the Abrams' 120mm cannon, but it packs the same punch. ."
- potential to have the same one on Challies, GD's UK-ised Griffins and Boxers (recoil permitting)?
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)
If you're going to select a prototype gun, wouldn't the RM 130mm be a better choice? I think they claim a 50% better "punch".ArmChairCivvy wrote:I overlooked this bit when the Griffin was 'announced'... was is at AUSA 2016?
" uses pieces of existing technology to lower costs and development time–and also return some investment to the Army for projects abandoned years ago. The Griffin's main gun is the XM360 120mm cannon that was designed at great cost under the now abandoned Future Combat Systems initiative. Remarkably, the gun weighs less than half the weight of the Abrams' 120mm cannon, but it packs the same punch. ."
- potential to have the same one on Challies, GD's UK-ised Griffins and Boxers (recoil permitting)?
By the way, the word is that despite GD using the ASCOD 2 chassis as the basis of their light tank prototype (it was cobbled together from the spare parts bin to see if the Army had any interest in the concept), there's very little ASCOD left in today's version. I think even the torsion bar suspension has been replaced.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Yes, I am aware that nearly everything else than the hull was different from our production version; wasn't it a mockup (in metal) more than a working prototype, to be tested
... horses and courses? Who is going to bet on Armatas turning up in hundreds/ thousands, or v.v.
Remarkably for the Leo's longer gun and a round that the older models can't handle 30% is being claimedRon5 wrote: they claim a 50% better "punch".
... horses and courses? Who is going to bet on Armatas turning up in hundreds/ thousands, or v.v.
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)
Just can't help thinking tho how good a 150 upgraded challenger tanks or so would do against 12,000 russian tanks rolling across the plains ,even if they were old ,and half not working , don't think Europes tank fleet going to do much just because off shear weight thrown against them no matter how good they are individually .I'm not saying we shouldn't upgrade them or Russia will come across the hills but that little number what good would it do ? Maybe I'm missing the point
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Russia will not be throwing "12,000" tanks anywhere in some giant doomblob. That isn't how either West or East operates.inch wrote:Just can't help thinking tho how good a 150 upgraded challenger tanks or so would do against 12,000 russian tanks rolling across the plains ,even if they were old ,and half not working , don't think Europes tank fleet going to do much just because off shear weight thrown against them no matter how good they are individually .I'm not saying we shouldn't upgrade them or Russia will come across the hills but that little number what good would it do ? Maybe I'm missing the point
Bear in mind of the Russian Ground forces (using the recent sourced wiki figures to save time) have:
- 350 T-90 (of which only 150 upgraded)
- 450 T-80 (of which only 175 upgraded)
- 2,000 T-72 (of which around 1,450 upgraded)
Unless they start digging into reserves (which are of older variants and questionable availability) they have around 2,800 in total in service, of which 1,775 are upgraded to a "level of threat concern" to the majority of leading western vehicle.
Armies of "12,000 tanks" rolling out do not exist in Russia. If they were building to that level, it would take a long, long, LONG time, and be highly visible years before.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Just to add to @RS' comment, the European NATO members have approximately 2300 fairly modern tanks between them (plus the Greeks have around 1000 older Leo 1As, M60s and M48s - no idea how many are useable though). Add in the US contribution and we have broadly similar numbers to the Russians. Since we would be fighting a primarily defensive war, that would seem to give NATO the advantage in numbers
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Furthermore, the announcement of aggregating offensive power back to divisional level (4 of them) seems to have been carried out - unlike most of the announcements - and you can find the four, with their locations, on pp. 9-10 in this one https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... wwppqDpoV8RetroSicotte wrote: total in service, of which 1,775 are upgraded to a "level of threat concern"
- and where they sit does not look as poised for an offensive (unless you are 'Ukraine'... or Belorussia, which, judging from the way things are going there with many, many mini-Tianmen Squares, will not need to be invaded any time soon)
These quoted tank numbers have come at the cost of surface fleet, flying hours in the AF... and many more setbacks, some of which will need 'righting' - i.e. reallocating monies
- see p.6 in the linked assessment
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)
Because the Boxer can carry out the same role, even if it has to wait for a new turret mounting greater firepower. .50cal plus a javelin will do for the time being and will help with funding issues.mr.fred wrote:Why would you want to maintain the MBT capability when you also want to cancel the IFVs?
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I stand corrected, I was basing this on a figure some quoted above of around £12M per tank for the upgrade.Ron5 wrote:hat's enough for about 20 tanks. New turrets do not come cheap neither do new optronics.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
From the Pagey's twitter account. Tank with new turret is at ATDU getting some real development.
In the accompanying thread, he pours some ice cold water over the idea of 130mm gun.
In the accompanying thread, he pours some ice cold water over the idea of 130mm gun.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Don't know who that famous man is, but, yes, there is also a rumour that the same turret that is proposed to be put onto the UK Challies could work wonders on the very old ("original") Norwegian Leo2A4s.Ron5 wrote:pours some ice cold water over the idea of 130mm gun
- not a big batch... but every little bit helps (with the unit cost )
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)
Commanding Officer, Armoured Trials and Development Unit, Bovington, according to his twitter bio.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Don't know who that famous man is
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
On the Warrior thread attention was drawn to this paper (written evidence):
https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... /9638/pdf/
It includes an excellent 'potted' history of (designing &) building AFVs in the UK, i.e how we went from world leader to no IP of our own in no time at all (which in armour is decades).
However, this list is presented as "decisions taken" and I am not sure that we "are there yet"?
"The Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme includes:1. A new turret and smooth bore gun.2. A new Kinetic Energy (KE) Round bought from the US or Germany.3. A new Day/Night Hunter Killer capability which will include greater range requirements for the new round.4. A new upgrade card for the ballistic computer.5. New Frontal Modular Armour (NMA).6. An Active Protection System (APS)either Trophy or Ironfist. Sources suggest that TrophyMedium Vehicle (MV) has been selected. This variant has also believed to have been purchased by Singapore.7. Upgrade of the Base Platform8. War stocks and Rheinmetall ammunition qualification.The armour and APS need to get through development integration critical design review and the NMA needs to complete development, all this before 2022 Quarter 3 review note proceeds."
- especially point 5 seems to be in lieu of the option of having a completely new turret? Have I missed something (I thought the latter was the favoured option)?
... and what is NMA, anyway
https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... /9638/pdf/
It includes an excellent 'potted' history of (designing &) building AFVs in the UK, i.e how we went from world leader to no IP of our own in no time at all (which in armour is decades).
However, this list is presented as "decisions taken" and I am not sure that we "are there yet"?
"The Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme includes:1. A new turret and smooth bore gun.2. A new Kinetic Energy (KE) Round bought from the US or Germany.3. A new Day/Night Hunter Killer capability which will include greater range requirements for the new round.4. A new upgrade card for the ballistic computer.5. New Frontal Modular Armour (NMA).6. An Active Protection System (APS)either Trophy or Ironfist. Sources suggest that TrophyMedium Vehicle (MV) has been selected. This variant has also believed to have been purchased by Singapore.7. Upgrade of the Base Platform8. War stocks and Rheinmetall ammunition qualification.The armour and APS need to get through development integration critical design review and the NMA needs to complete development, all this before 2022 Quarter 3 review note proceeds."
- especially point 5 seems to be in lieu of the option of having a completely new turret? Have I missed something (I thought the latter was the favoured option)?
... and what is NMA, anyway
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)
As a guess about NMA, I believe the kits of appliqué armour used in Iraq in 2003 for Challenger 2 were the same kits used for Challenger 1 in Iraq in 1991. Some of the appliqué armour goes on the front hull, so maybe they are replacing that?
The original website posting with this info seems rather speculative, although quite specific for the turret to be used on a Boxer replacement for Warrior.
https://battle-updates.com/update/uk-go ... ep-report/
The original website posting with this info seems rather speculative, although quite specific for the turret to be used on a Boxer replacement for Warrior.
https://battle-updates.com/update/uk-go ... ep-report/
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Is point 5 referring to new modular armour for the front of the Hull? Or could it be an add on armour package for both the hull and the "New" turret, basically a TES set for use when deployed operationally. I can also soo any APS purchased being usable by as many platforms as possible, hence the reference to the "Medium" vehicle option. This would allow for a pool of systems to be held and added to vehicles when required, said vehicles having the relevant fitting and connectors already installed.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
It is possible that just interpretation of language is the problem here
Some sketches of the placing of it (production line photos as 'underlying'):
- if so, it would roughly replicate the depleted uranium additional armour layers on M-1s: frontal glacis and the front curvature on both sides of the gun, on the turretLord Jim wrote: could it be an add on armour package for both the hull and the "New" turret
Some sketches of the placing of it (production line photos as 'underlying'):
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)
The 130mm ?? That would be a turn up.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Don't know who that famous man is, but, yes, there is also a rumour that the same turret that is proposed to be put onto the UK Challies could work wonders on the very old ("original") Norwegian Leo2A4s.Ron5 wrote:pours some ice cold water over the idea of 130mm gun
- not a big batch... but every little bit helps (with the unit cost )
As would a new Challenger turret that could also (easily?) be mounted on Leo's as part of an upgrade package. Bet there would be a few countries that would fancy that. Esp with 130mm gun and proven ammo. OK now I'm getting crazy, time to lie down.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Not sure why the confusion about a new turret. The 120mm smooth bore requires one. As shown in the picture from ATDU.ArmChairCivvy wrote:On the Warrior thread attention was drawn to this paper (written evidence):
https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... /9638/pdf/
It includes an excellent 'potted' history of (designing &) building AFVs in the UK, i.e how we went from world leader to no IP of our own in no time at all (which in armour is decades).
However, this list is presented as "decisions taken" and I am not sure that we "are there yet"?
"The Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme includes:1. A new turret and smooth bore gun.2. A new Kinetic Energy (KE) Round bought from the US or Germany.3. A new Day/Night Hunter Killer capability which will include greater range requirements for the new round.4. A new upgrade card for the ballistic computer.5. New Frontal Modular Armour (NMA).6. An Active Protection System (APS)either Trophy or Ironfist. Sources suggest that TrophyMedium Vehicle (MV) has been selected. This variant has also believed to have been purchased by Singapore.7. Upgrade of the Base Platform8. War stocks and Rheinmetall ammunition qualification.The armour and APS need to get through development integration critical design review and the NMA needs to complete development, all this before 2022 Quarter 3 review note proceeds."
- especially point 5 seems to be in lieu of the option of having a completely new turret? Have I missed something (I thought the latter was the favoured option)?
... and what is NMA, anyway
The program has not passed maingate (due this year) so "decisions taken" don't mean a whole lot. Personally I doubt an APS will be seen other than FFBNW.
I seem to remember from the first reveal of the RM proposal that a new armor package(s) were part of the offer. Mostly based on the old packages no longer fitting the upgraded vehicle esp turret. No doubt made from RM's finest.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I presume the turrets get new armour as the turrets will be newly manufactured by Rheinmetall / RBSL (not sure whether in Germany or the UK).Lord Jim wrote:Is point 5 referring to new modular armour for the front of the Hull? Or could it be an add on armour package for both the hull and the "New" turret, basically a TES set for use when deployed operationally.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Would think so, esp. as armour development proceeds at pacemilitary wrote:I presume the turrets get new armour as the turrets will be newly manufactured
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)