FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

Defiance wrote:made sense that we would want to understand their program requirements
and at the same time I am sure that we won't be too far away from the US prgrm, trying to set rqrmnts for the Abrams successor. They know how difficult that will be (hence what will emerge will not be a 'direct' successor), but they will work through the "Carmel track" for us.
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)

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 451
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

It doesn't hurt to look. Given how bad the LeClerc is, I hope the Germans take the lead.

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 »

jimthelad wrote:It doesn't hurt to look. Given how bad the LeClerc is, I hope the Germans take the lead.
They will, the more 'obscure' artillery project will probs have the French leading.

What I can't understand is for what purpose did they (the new joint company) put a LeClerc turret on a Leo2
... it does have an autoloader and if they (we :) ) go for the bigger gun, I hear having the autolodder becomes a must, rather than an option
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)

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 451
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

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

Post by jimthelad »

The French would have insisted they have the pretty bit on top. As a result they have combined the worst bits of both tanks!!! 130mm CR3 for me please and then lets have a serious look at what the US is doing for 15yrs time.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 769
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

jimthelad wrote:The French would have insisted they have the pretty bit on top. As a result they have combined the worst bits of both tanks!!! 130mm CR3 for me please and then lets have a serious look at what the US is doing for 15yrs time.
Agreed. Never before have the three nations managed to agree on a tank design which suits all of our requirements. I certainly don't see that changing now, especially given that the UK would be joining as a late participant, a passenger effectively, if it were to eventually join the programme.

Now this may be undeserved scepticism at this early stage, but then only thing I can see UK participation in the Eurotank programme leading to will be the induction of an imperfect design that we will have had little say over and thus won't be particularly well optimised to our requirements/doctrine, it will arrive years late, will be massively overbudget and will have done little to benefit our ailing AV industry.

I can see it being like Typhoon, but worse...

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Thoroughly stupid idea, esp given Brexit and also how EU defence programmes go. The infiltration of EU collaborators are sympathisers runs deep unfortunately. We need to fight the fight on this and help stop it becoming a reality.

Little J
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Little J »

I freely admit I know naff all about tanks, but wouldn't it be better to get in with the Americans on a future tank design? Their goals seem to be more inline with ours, than with what the French and Germans can offer...

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2688
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

A long term road map and development/assembly for the U.K. heavy armour forces based on collaboration with Rheinmetall at Telford would seem a sensible move.

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 »

THis
" based on collaboration with Rheinmetall at Telford"
sounds like a good idea, as the Leos have been split between two manufacturers, and one is now in the EuroCamp.

But is it :?: that we have the one that is involved with the gun and that is what very much drives the design (as in how it will be different from the previous 'generations'(.
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)

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 93
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by TheLoneRanger »

https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -eurotank/

All that history going to waste if we get into bed with the Eu-tards and their pet project...

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Arguably it went to waste when the UK didn’t start developing the replacement for CR2 once that was fully in service. The diversion down medium weight and FRES hasn’t helped.

tomuk
Member
Posts: 335
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

TheLoneRanger wrote: history going to waste
What a joke! Vickers who built Challenger are long gone. Elswick is used for various engineering work by Pearsons. Barnbow is a demolished wasteland. No factories or people to waste.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

Is there any possibility of getting into a partnership with South Korea or Japan they seem to have the capital for development and a commitment to building such especially South Korea ?

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 »

To add to the above, ROK comes in ahead of us (by a wide margin!) in defence-oriented R&D
(in millions of purchasing power parity dollars)
Country R&D
United States $55,441.0
South Korea 3,377.3
United Kingdom 2,379.4
Germany 1,530.2
France 1,431.1
Turkey 1,350.9
Japan 1,199.1

There are fresh numbers for Korea from 2020, but no readily available comparison (the above are 2017 data).

The other remarkable feature of what their research, and then development, produces are highly usable weapon systems (relevant for a conscript army) with unit prices that do not break the bank - ie. can be procured en masse, thus avoiding having to use age-old HW and just constantly LEP'ping the most critical components - sound familiar :?: - for maintaining effectiveness
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)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1751
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Australia

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

Post by seaspear »

There was previously the possibility of South Korea and Poland developing a tank
https://www.defence24.com/could-poland- ... a-analysis
https://www.defence24.com/k2pl-a-polish ... th-support

This article suggests Polish doubts of involvement with France and Germany could be an opening for someone else to join this duo
https://www.offiziere.ch/?p=37955

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

With the UK , Australia and Canada all needing to replace there MBT's = 300+ tanks at about the same time could we pull off a Type 26 style commonwealth program with Rheinmetall at it heart

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

The K2 which the proposal is based on is a very good tank but it is a tank of today even with the Polanisation rather than a tank for the 2030s and onwards. However compared to the T-72 and the Polish variants, it would be a huge step change in capability. They have even developed a unique 120mm APFSDS round for the L/55 gun on the K2 which is supposed to be superior to the latest German round but its performance data is not in the public domain so we will have to take their word for it.

By the way could we retrofit the Krab 155mm L/52 turrets onto our AS-90 chassis, just a thought as they were based on the AS-90 turret to start with? May be a cost effective way to provide an interim performance upgrade to he system whilst we await longer term developments in the field.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Tempest414 wrote:could we pull off a Type 26 style commonwealth program with Rheinmetall at it heart
It’d be about as British as Queen Victoria.

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 »

The first two 24.com articles are clearly sponsored promotions, but have a lot of good detail. E.g. detailing why it was worthwhile for the Turks tp partner with the Koreans to get it 'right the first time'.
- compare with Krab: over 20 years three guns, two chasses... OK, now it is a mature solution

But putting all three sources together, there is a need by 2028 to start rolling out 500-ish MBTs to Poland's forces
- who else will be as big a customer within Europe?
- the Poles have done it before. Their T-55 was much heftier than the original; the T-72 derivative is also a good one
- so can they be shunned, just to secure Franco-German workshares? Or, double the purchase and set up a second production line?
Cfr.
Tempest414 wrote:With the UK , Australia and Canada all needing to replace there MBT's = 300+ tanks
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)

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

tomuk wrote:
TheLoneRanger wrote: history going to waste
What a joke! Vickers who built Challenger are long gone. Elswick is used for various engineering work by Pearsons. Barnbow is a demolished wasteland. No factories or people to waste.
All due to one Paul Drayson, Labour's procurement supremo who declared all UK AFV manufacture was non-strategic and could be disposed of.

His idiocy on this and other issues had damaging impacts still felt today. He was rewarded with a Lordship.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

mr.fred wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:could we pull off a Type 26 style commonwealth program with Rheinmetall at it heart
It’d be about as British as Queen Victoria.
I suspect he meant RBSL which makes it a a tad better.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Ron5 wrote:I suspect he meant RBSL which makes it a a tad better.
“Half German and married to a German” doesn’t seem too far from the truth there.
Also subsequently regarded as very British.

The proof would be in the pudding.
If it ends up with Europack engine, Renk transmission, krupp steel, Zeiss optics and Diehl tracks it’s pretty German and might as well be an MGCS.
If it’s a Caterpillar engine, david brown transmission, British steel (somehow), cook tracks, Thales/ Leonardo optics then at least those companies have those capabilities in the UK.

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 »

Ron5 wrote:was rewarded with a Lordship.
It is an example of how one can pull us (as a nation) down in world ranks from a medal stand to the tenth or below
... similar actions have, of late, been awarded with a Lordship.
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)

Scimitar54
Senior Member
Posts: 1235
Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 05:10
United Kingdom

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

Post by Scimitar54 »

Should have been rewarded with a voyage to the Red Sea, followed by a “encouraged” invitation to “walk the plank”.
:mrgreen:

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3037
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Ron5 wrote:
mr.fred wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:could we pull off a Type 26 style commonwealth program with Rheinmetall at it heart
It’d be about as British as Queen Victoria.
I suspect he meant RBSL which makes it a a tad better.
Yes this is what I was thinking for the UK but I was thinking more a commonwealth program with work share

Post Reply