UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1916
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Caribbean » 10 Jul 2020, 17:00

The Armchair Soldier wrote:Is this confirmation the LEP will include anti-tank missiles?

Interesting wording, isn't it? It could just mean improved 120mm ammunition (likely), or even a gun-launched missile like Falarick (less likely). I think "put a missile down that barrel" rules out ATGMs, though
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 10 Jul 2020, 20:56

It definitely appears that the Army is now looking at a comprehensive upgrade to the Challenger 2 rather than simply replacing obsolete components, and has drawn up a list of requirements that would make it basically a new Tank able to compete on a future battlefield against a peer opponent.

Now that is good news, but I worry as the same idea of upgrading an existing platform to make it more capable as a cheaper alternative to buying new was the sane as used for the Warrior CSP, and look how that has progressed, overbudget, reduced numbers and late to put it mildly.

As for an ATGW, well the US Army amongst others are developing gun launched ATGMs and Israel has them already in service, and all of which use the Rheinmetall 120mm or a similar gun, so adopting such a munition would not be a huge step if the CR2 upgrade delivers what the Army hopes for, and the same goes for the advanced penetrators in use around the world for the same gun.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 10 Jul 2020, 21:46

Caribbean wrote:
The Armchair Soldier wrote:Is this confirmation the LEP will include anti-tank missiles?

Interesting wording, isn't it? It could just mean improved 120mm ammunition (likely), or even a gun-launched missile like Falarick (less likely). I think "put a missile down that barrel" rules out ATGMs, though

RLS and Israel have tested the LAHAT. We have a history of Spike missiles. LAHAT seems like a decent option.

CMOR
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Jun 2020, 08:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby CMOR » 11 Jul 2020, 07:56

Jealous girlfriend meme, with distracted boyfriend looking at sexy Challenger 2 (now with added missile!), and jealous girlfriend being "deployability".

Until the Army comes up with the coherent plan to be able to move its assets from A to B in an operationally relevant timeframe, those assets are always going to be very vulnerable in defence reviews. People outside the MOD can figure this stuff out.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 11 Jul 2020, 09:43

CMOR wrote:Jealous girlfriend meme, with distracted boyfriend looking at sexy Challenger 2 (now with added missile!), and jealous girlfriend being "deployability".

Until the Army comes up with the coherent plan to be able to move its assets from A to B in an operationally relevant timeframe, those assets are always going to be very vulnerable in defence reviews. People outside the MOD can figure this stuff out.

The Australians have moved Abrams on C17, obviously with a degree of teardown, and I doubt it was anything but a prestine runway to land on.

But, given the right efforts, what would prevent Chally 2 being C17 transported? Probably won't roll-off and straight into the fight, but it could be in theatre within 24hrs of first shot?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Jul 2020, 10:13

CMOR wrote:Until the Army comes up with the coherent plan to be able to move its assets from A to B in an operationally relevant timeframe, those assets are always going to be very vulnerable in defence reviews. People outside the MOD can figure this stuff out.


Ideally we need to move one AI Brigade further east, either as a whole units or as prepositioned equipment, and have the necessary HETs and/or railway rolling stock to get it into eastern Poland or another NATO country ASAP.

In addition we need to carry out an exercise to move a Brigade from the UK to the same location with only a few days notice so we can see where the cracks are and fix them. At present this will either have to be an AI Brigade or a stand in "Strike" Brigade using Warriors, Mastiffs etc.

CMOR
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 12 Jun 2020, 08:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby CMOR » 11 Jul 2020, 13:05

RunningStrong wrote:]
The Australians have moved Abrams on C17, obviously with a degree of teardown, and I doubt it was anything but a prestine runway to land on.

But, given the right efforts, what would prevent Chally 2 being C17 transported? Probably won't roll-off and straight into the fight, but it could be in theatre within 24hrs of first shot?


I'm sure it could be done in theory, but I'd like to see the Army actually do it in practice. And that's before we get into the question of how to do it at scale, given that we hardly have an enormous C-17 fleet.

Lord Jim wrote:
Ideally we need to move one AI Brigade further east, either as a whole units or as prepositioned equipment, and have the necessary HETs and/or railway rolling stock to get it into eastern Poland or another NATO country ASAP.

In addition we need to carry out an exercise to move a Brigade from the UK to the same location with only a few days notice so we can see where the cracks are and fix them. At present this will either have to be an AI Brigade or a stand in "Strike" Brigade using Warriors, Mastiffs etc.


Yep. If the Army wants to be taken seriously come SDSR time, this is the sort of thing it needs to do, not spout endless technobabble about transformation, innovation, cyber, blah blah.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2606
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 11 Jul 2020, 18:23

Carter probably just meant "projectile". Remember that "missile" refers to that sort of thing in certain branches of English too.

Odds are 9/10 he probably just meant a normal FIN round. Given it's L55A1 that likely refers more to (so called) DM73.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Jul 2020, 21:40

I am not so sure, he mentions a new gun which is likely to be the L/55, but the use of the word "Missile" is a very odd one to use if he simply meant shoot a round from it. Weapons like LAHAT and that which the US Army are developing are going to become essential in the future. Now whether he meant that such a weapon would be part of the CR2 modernisation from the start or that it was part of a longer term plan to gain the capability in the 2030s should be up for debate. This seems to be the timeline he sees the Army achieving its transformation or at least the first part anyway.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2606
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 31 Jul 2020, 11:34



Well, this was a surprise.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 4366
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 31 Jul 2020, 13:31

Highly unlikely but wouldn't it be something if the Challenger 2 CEP resulted in our becoming the first western nation to field a Main Battle Tank armed with a 130mm Gun in regular\r service.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 312
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RunningStrong » 31 Jul 2020, 14:03

Lord Jim wrote:Highly unlikely but wouldn't it be something if the Challenger 2 CEP resulted in our becoming the first western nation to field a Main Battle Tank armed with a 130mm Gun in regular\r service.

Let's hope others press ahead and adopt it too otherwise we're back to square one...

Andy-M
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Andy-M » 31 Jul 2020, 14:22

Image

The photo released with that video shows the turret having a lot more armour fitted along with the new 130mm gun, could this be one of the proposals for LEP?


Andy-M
Member
Posts: 35
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Andy-M » 31 Jul 2020, 15:25

Is it just me? That vehicle in the video showing off the new 130mm gun is a Challenger 2 LEP, yes? Seems like just about every article is naming it as a Leopard 2.

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27551 ... 0mm_Turret

https://www.armyrecognition.com/defense ... annon.html

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2606
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 31 Jul 2020, 16:02

It is a Challenger.

Basically, one site said Leo, and all the sites who just reprinted from that one copied. It's usually the case.

Shows how little research most "journalism" does.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Ron5 » 31 Jul 2020, 16:33

That is an extremely curious video. The content and the timing.

I'm not expert by a long shot (stand in line) but I was of the thinking that RM's long 120mm with existing US Depleted Uranium darts would be superior at splashing tanks to any 120mm or 130mm gun with Tungsten rods which is all the German army can have by law.

For uses other than anti-tank, I'm not aware of any demand for a bigger gun.

And with the mandatory autoloader and much bigger ammo, the 130mm tank would be well down on reloads plus a crew member which the BA values.

So why would the UK want a 130mm gun Challenger? especially after, as RunningBrave hints, they're trying to escape from a 20 year trap of having a unique gun and ammo to enter another potential 20 year trap of having a unique gun and ammo.....deja vu all over again

I don't suppose this could be a rather old video of one of the Challengers that RM got at the beginning of the CH2 LEP program to play with? We saw the one Bae got dressed up as Black Knight or somesuch. Didn't they get two each? Did we ever get to see them all?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Ron5 » 31 Jul 2020, 16:38

Reading that again, I'm not being clear. I don't think its about the tank. Just the gun and only the gun. In the context of the German French program. Nothing to do with UK.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1492
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby seaspear » 31 Jul 2020, 21:01

The article stated heavier armour as well, have any modifications been done to the power and engine to accommodate this as its one of the slower tanks as I understand?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2606
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 04 Aug 2020, 08:50

Ron5 wrote:I'm not expert by a long shot (stand in line) but I was of the thinking that RM's long 120mm with existing US Depleted Uranium darts would be superior at splashing tanks to any 120mm or 130mm gun with Tungsten rods which is all the German army can have by law.

There isn't a colossal difference between the L44 firing M829A3 and the L55 firing DM63.

The 130mm firgni its round has about 50% more capacity for penetration than either though. It's a massive upgrade.

For uses other than anti-tank, I'm not aware of any demand for a bigger gun.

That's pretty much it. With APS taking off, KEPs are becoming the solution again, and current 120 ammo is starting to get protected against. (T-14 frontal hull is estimated to be resistant with Relikt ERA even to the M829A4.)

And with the mandatory autoloader and much bigger ammo, the 130mm tank would be well down on reloads plus a crew member which the BA values.

Hard to tell. In an existing layout, defo lower (The 120mm manual loaded L55A1 version has been said to reduce the CR2 to 31 rounds) but with the autoloader and dropping the operator, who knows.

So why would the UK want a 130mm gun Challenger? especially after, as RunningBrave hints, they're trying to escape from a 20 year trap of having a unique gun and ammo to enter another potential 20 year trap of having a unique gun and ammo.....deja vu all over again

There's actually a touch choice here. CR2 Mk2 enters service approaching 2030 anyway (I know they say 2025, but good luck on that!) and both US and EU are moving to other things from then onwards anyway. Could equally the UK order the 120, then both major users move right on over to 130 or 130/whatever ETC 120 they use right away and leave the UK behind the curve all over again without major development?

There's a risk either way now that they'll have to consider.

Ron5 wrote:Reading that again, I'm not being clear. I don't think its about the tank. Just the gun and only the gun. In the context of the German French program. Nothing to do with UK.

Pretty much correct, no-one's really sure on the exact status of that vehicle yet.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 386
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby jimthelad » 04 Aug 2020, 09:44

It is interesting that everyone is applauding the excellent mobility of the 'new' tank hull form including it bossing the cross country element when the same commentators maligned the CR2 which it actually is !!!

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 786
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 04 Aug 2020, 09:57

Almost as if mobility can’t be broken down into a couple of statistics.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 4358
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Ron5 » 04 Aug 2020, 17:47

RetroSicotte wrote:There's actually a tough choice here. CR2 Mk2 enters service approaching 2030 anyway (I know they say 2025, but good luck on that!) and both US and EU are moving to other things from then onwards anyway. Could equally the UK order the 120, then both major users move right on over to 130 or 130/whatever ETC 120 they use right away and leave the UK behind the curve all over again without major development?


Interesting long comment, allow me to pick up on this one para.

Surely the UK only really cares what the US does and who knows which way we(they) will jump when (or even if) it comes time for a new tank gun. One thing we can be sure of and that is, it will take a devil of a long time before all of the US inventory is converted over. Quite long enough to see out the life of the Challenger 2 upgrade. I'm going to stick a pin and say service entry of Challenger 3 will be 2027!! German efficiency and all that.

Maybe I am biased but I don't really give a rats what the rest of Germany and France does. Well apart from providing a great show when the infighting starts. The two worst international partners ever collaborating, ha, got my popcorn ready. The gun caliber is just a start. Wait until something serious comes up like the new tanks name. Tiger vs Petain? Lion vs Napolean?

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1892
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby bobp » 04 Aug 2020, 21:57

Ron5 wrote:The two worst international partners ever collaborating, ha, got my popcorn ready


Yep buy a big bucket :crazy: :clap:

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2575
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby abc123 » 05 Aug 2020, 14:10

Ron5 wrote: Petain?


I don't see why would Germans have any problems with that name? :lol:

Just kidding...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests