FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

It was my inspiration as the IDF seems to be seriously exploring this route. In all seriousness though this maybe the route to take if you want optionally manned vehicles as with a resident AI and remote access to the sensor feeds such a platform would basically be a ground based Reaper. :D

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... 3-upgrade/

148 for £800m. At about £5.5m each that seems cheap.

andrew98
Member
Posts: 196
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:28
United Kingdom

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

Post by andrew98 »

Shame, would have loved some gold plated Rheinmetall Rh-130 action :twisted: :lol:

serge750
Member
Posts: 823
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

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

Post by serge750 »

Future Tanknology !!! such a good phase :lol: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

military
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: 08 Aug 2020, 23:15
United States of America

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

Post by military »

[quote="mr.fred"148 for £800m. At about £5.5m each that seems cheap.[/quote]

That is without the APS (60 of them, apparently) and probably without changes to the engines.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1120
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

military wrote:That is without the APS (60 of them, apparently) and probably without changes to the engines.
If it included those it’d be the deal of the century. As it is it’s pretty good value compared to any other option.

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 90
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by TheLoneRanger »

I think some people on the forum are excited about "Challenger 3", but to me it is distressing that the country that invented the tank is now forced to have its tanks upgraded by intellectual poperty owned by a German orgin company ie Rheinmetall ....

We are relying on German intellectual property to provide the spear of our surface offensive fleet to the Germans, both for this tank rebuild and the new Boxer fleet.

How has it come to this, that a country that itself does not buy for its own armed forces many of the products that Rheinmetall, and ARTEC GmbH make, yet can have so many market leaders in those products, and now and have displaced the manufacturing capabilities of countries that buy a lot of equipment of that same equipment for their armed forces, ie the UK.

What is SSSSOOO wrong with the UK industrial strategy and they way our companies are run, that we run everything into the ground and others progressively build up their companies.

What is wrong with the economics of UK financal theory? Something must be disfunctional !?!

(And before everyone jumps in with the - oh it is a UK registered company, chillout routine... yes, it is, but the core intellectual property of the design that is German owned eg the turret etc.. and that is real stuff, some some low paid plebs with their screw drivers in a factory in the UK...).

This news is distressing to me ...

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 736
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by Defiance »

TheLoneRanger wrote:What is SSSSOOO wrong with the UK industrial strategy and they way our companies are run, that we run everything into the ground and others progressively build up their companies.

What is wrong with the economics of UK financal theory? Something must be disfunctional !?!
The Treasury considers money spent on defence as money lost and do not care that much about value drawn from the wider UK supply chain. £1bn spent on a program is £1bn spent, regardless if in Option A it all goes overseas or Option B that it's spent within the UK, the UK supply chain and to UK citizens who then pay taxes.

Fortunately that appears to be changing with recent announcements in changes to MOD policy where UK industrial benefits are higher up the pecking order in terms of priority. Any country with any wealth and sense these days is demanding industrial offet for major procurements and we seem to be waking up to that.

We need an AFV strategy akin to the National Shipbuilding Strategy and the Combat Air Strategy if we want to provide some sort of direction to the sector.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

From what I’ve read the RBSL/BAE partnership in Telford allows for the design integration, full production and test of whatever it wants whenever it want on the vehicles built there. Which is exactly what you want. It allows for integration of the things from UK areas it excels in such as armour. You don’t have to design and build every last bit of the product no one does, but you do need the ability to be the systems integrator and invest in areas of technology you deem important.

Jdam
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

a turret that can be fitted to the tanks of allies and global partners
Is the idea the can sell the Turret as part of some collaboration? (thinking of how BAE makes parts of the F-35)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Jdam wrote:
a turret that can be fitted to the tanks of allies and global partners
Is the idea the can sell the Turret as part of some collaboration? (thinking of how BAE makes parts of the F-35)
If the new turret fits a Leopard, yes. Otherwise meh.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 449
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

I thought the reason they chose the CR2 was because the turret ring was wider and therefore easier to integrate the 130mm gun and autoloader.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

IMHO the Challenger 3 will be the best tank in the Western armory until the new Euro-tank emerges:

Armor- best
Gun - best
Ammo - best
Sights - best
Combat system - unknown but automatic target selection sounds buena
APS - probably best, 500m to be spent on non-RBSL thingies
Cross country mobility - one of the best probably becomes the best with a 1500 bhp engine & new hyrdrogas suspension

From last to first!!

As for numbers, plenty of time before the early 2030's to add more to the order if wiser heads prevail. Or spend the extra money on seeding a new gen tank.

Well done BA :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

jimthelad wrote:I thought the reason they chose the CR2 was because the turret ring was wider and therefore easier to integrate the 130mm gun and autoloader.
The Rheinmettall guy recently said they chose the Chally for the 130mm trial is because they had one lying around left over from the Cr3 evaluation contract. They asked the MoD and they said sure go ahead, we'd be interested in the outcome too. Ring size wasn't mentioned.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 449
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

Ok, does that mean we get to keep the one they found down the back of the couch?!?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

jimthelad wrote:Ok, does that mean we get to keep the one they found down the back of the couch?!?
I was rooting for the 130mm but too long a shot unfortunately. I assume they have to return the tank but not the gun boooooo

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2321
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

Ron5 wrote:IMHO the Challenger 3 will be the best tank in the Western armory until the new Euro-tank emerges:

Armor- best
Gun - best
Ammo - best
Sights - best
Combat system - unknown but automatic target selection sounds buena
APS - probably best, 500m to be spent on non-RBSL thingies
Cross country mobility - one of the best probably becomes the best with a 1500 bhp engine & new hyrdrogas suspension

From last to first!!

As for numbers, plenty of time before the early 2030's to add more to the order if wiser heads prevail. Or spend the extra money on seeding a new gen tank.

Well done BA :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Add the 130mm gun and confirm the bigger engine and it sounds like a good starting point for the new Eurotank - we could even call it the Challenger 4 :twisted:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6196
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »


Well the contract has been signed for 148 Challenger 3s, to be built at Telford, but as always the timescales are disappointing with IOC not until 2027 and FOC by 2030, though this is better then most of the Army's procurement programmes needed for it to complete its transformation. I wish they could have painted the demonstrator in the new trial digital camouflage shown off recently.

What I do disagree with is the Defence Secretary's view that the Army does not need mass to secure a peace after the main fighting has ended. Surely that was one of the Key lessons we learnt in Iraq. Also his saying that Iraq showed how easy it was to roll up an enemy Armoured Brigade in no way reflects what could happen in a Peer level conflict. The small size of our force may mean it is our Brigade that gets rolled up if we are not careful.

A lot is going to depend on the seamless co-operation between our heavy BCT and the Deep Strike BCT as well as with air assets and the assets of our allies. but until we conduct seriously large exercises pitting out BCTs together with Allies against a realistically sized OPFOR, to test the deploy ability, mobility, effectiveness and resilience of the new BCTs, to me the Command Paper ia nothing more that a rebranding to cover the loss of still essential capabilities and mass.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: timescales are disappointing with IOC not until 2027 and FOC by 2030
A lot of things seem to be hitting that same time window, e.g. the new artillery pieces
... does it mean that most of the new BCTs only go 'into' transformation about then? Strike Bde(s) plan was not much faster
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)

Jdam
Member
Posts: 480
Joined: 09 May 2015, 22:26
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jdam »

Is the 130mm gun going to start to equip new tanks from around NATO or is it just the proposal?

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6273
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Jdam wrote:Is the 130mm gun going to start to equip new tanks from around NATO or is it just the proposal?
Rheinmettals #1 wish to Santa.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2666
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

I know we’ve been pretty rubbish at doing this sort of thing to date so we can only hope with selecting the right industry partnership we do better this time.

Just a question but why if you were up gunning would you not end up with 127mm than 130mm as they’re quite a lot of development with 127mm guns.

It sounds more and more that these heavy brigades will be operating in a form previously envisaged for the strike brigades.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7177
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

BAE Challenger 3 specific thread created at https://www.ukdefenceforum.net/viewtopi ... =42&t=1127

Post Reply