FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Work share is a pretty difficult thing to manage, particularly across widely separated locations.
I’d think the best way to manage it would be to either spread the work around on the basis of subsystems (Canadian tracks, Australian steel etc.) but even that is tricky.
Maybe simply design it in one place and license the design, with design support to integrate local materials/ systems as desired.
Made more complex by none of the locations having government design bureaus, so it’s down to local arms of private companies which may be subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Nightmare.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

Setting arbitrary work share arrangements leads to subject matter experts from various places being overlooked and issues arising dwn the line. You should let the company designing the product choose the suppliers with a free hand as much as practicable in defence project. If the past year has taught company’s anything it is that the design engineering is conducted where people open there laptops. from a U.K. perspective perhaps armour tech is what we would contribute to the initial design.

In country design integration of systems and assembly is what we should be aiming for. Being involved in something as successful as what leopard became would benefit U.K. plc and the army considerably.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

mr.fred wrote:Work share is a pretty difficult thing to manage, particularly across widely separated locations.
I’d think the best way to manage it would be to either spread the work around on the basis of subsystems (Canadian tracks, Australian steel etc.) but even that is tricky.
Maybe simply design it in one place and license the design, with design support to integrate local materials/ systems as desired.
Made more complex by none of the locations having government design bureaus, so it’s down to local arms of private companies which may be subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Nightmare.
I agree however what I am thinking of is that if the Australia , Canada and the UK singed up to a Commonwealth tank group they could set up a design house say in Australia and send 1 or 2 of there tanks there each to be tested and striped as Australia has M-1 , Canada has Leopard and the UK has CH-2. Work share in the building would come in the form of CMS , com's , armour , power pack , steel , weapons , sub units and as seen from the frigate builds parts come from all over the world and are put together in the yards of which ever country

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6286
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:Work share is a pretty difficult thing to manage, particularly across widely separated locations.
I’d think the best way to manage it would be to either spread the work around on the basis of subsystems (Canadian tracks, Australian steel etc.) but even that is tricky.
Maybe simply design it in one place and license the design, with design support to integrate local materials/ systems as desired.
Made more complex by none of the locations having government design bureaus, so it’s down to local arms of private companies which may be subsidiaries of foreign corporations. Nightmare.
Seems to be working well with Type 26 frigates.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Isn’t the Frigate arrangement a bit more of a license build?

Canada and Australia weren’t on board from the start.

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:steel , weapons , sub units and as seen from the frigate builds parts come from all over the world and are put together in the yards of which ever country
Not trying to be 'funny' but when I read this, I thought about T-31 and not T26
- a base design, modified in a way that the 'customer' kept a close look on
- them sourced w/o constraints, so that the price would come in 'right'
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

The point is weather it is eurofighter or frigates or tanks work share is now a thing in most projects and is doable

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Tempest414 wrote:The point is weather it is eurofighter or frigates or tanks work share is now a thing in most projects and is doable
Yes, work share is common and how modern systems now are built. The point of most of the people on this forum is that both France and Germany are untrustworthy countries who look to undermine the UK is all aspects at every opportunity, and the toxic manner in which they handled Brexit means they should not be treated as friends or allies at all now. They are our strategic competitors, and also the enemy now..

There are better more trustworthy workshare partners out there for the UK like the USA ... and we have more in common with them, then the foreign speaking muck just over the channel ...

USER WAS WARNED FOR THIS POST


Luke jones
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 07 Jan 2016, 11:13

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

Post by Luke jones »

TheLoneRanger wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:The point is weather it is eurofighter or frigates or tanks work share is now a thing in most projects and is doable
Yes, work share is common and how modern systems now are built. The point of most of the people on this forum is that both France and Germany are untrustworthy countries who look to undermine the UK is all aspects at every opportunity, and the toxic manner in which they handled Brexit means they should not be treated as friends or allies at all now. They are our strategic competitors, and also the enemy now..

There are better more trustworthy workshare partners out there for the UK like the USA ... and we have more in common with them, then the foreign speaking muck just over the channel ...
Bit strong with your words i think there. I really don't think calling France and Germany the 'Enemy' and 'foreign speaking muck' is acceptable really.

I do get the issue with difficulties with partnerships with those countries, but come on.

I say that as an ardent Brexiteer aswell.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Tempest414 wrote:The point is weather it is eurofighter or frigates or tanks work share is now a thing in most projects and is doable
Eurofighter, where France pulled out and partner disagreement has caused delays and cost.
Tanks, such as MRAV , where France pulled out and then the UK did, or MBT80 where it all fell through?
Frigates, like the Type 26 where its being licensed to other countries, not developed under work share agreements.

I think that the current feeling is that trying to split up the design and build from the start doesn’t make the savings claimed.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

If we follow the T-26 idea, there might be a chance of success if the UK designed a Challenger replacement then licenced it to both Canada and Australia, who in return would also provide sub assemblies for all three countries. Other items like the Gun and Power Pack may come form the three members or from outside, the Rheinmetall 120mm being one option for the former, and MTU providing the latter.

However would the quantities required in total by all three nations justify such a project, we are looking at less than 400 Tanks and support vehicles in total here. Also we would be in competition with both the USA and France/Germany in the field of a next generation platform, not just for exports but for both Canada and Australia, so we would have to offer something different in the ways the capabilities of our platform were balanced as well as keeping costs competitive.

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 »

Luke jones wrote:Bit strong with your words i think there. I really don't think calling France and Germany the 'Enemy' and 'foreign speaking muck' is acceptable really.

I do get the issue with difficulties with partnerships with those countries, but come on.
I trust 100% :) that the mods know how the enemy can operate behind enemy lines.
Lord Jim wrote:However would the quantities required in total by all three nations justify such a project, we are looking at less than 400 Tanks and support vehicles in total here.
As I said earlier, the Polish need for 500-ish replacements from 2028 onwards seems to 'trump' those quantities
- of course with Ft. Trump there, they might be given the odd-hundreds of M-1s and would only need to pay for the modernisation (sorry, polonisation) work on them
- happened with Morocco (where's the threat?) and Greece, of late
- how many thousands of xtra M-1s have been ordered just to make sure that there is a 'hot' production line
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

TheLoneRanger wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:The point is weather it is eurofighter or frigates or tanks work share is now a thing in most projects and is doable
Yes, work share is common and how modern systems now are built. The point of most of the people on this forum is that both France and Germany are untrustworthy countries who look to undermine the UK is all aspects at every opportunity, and the toxic manner in which they handled Brexit means they should not be treated as friends or allies at all now. They are our strategic competitors, and also the enemy now..

There are better more trustworthy workshare partners out there for the UK like the USA ... and we have more in common with them, then the foreign speaking muck just over the channel ...
Really wow its not like the good old US has ever fucked the little old UK over is it, Its time you put your big boy pants on and leaned that all countries screw each other over to get the best for there own.

And by the way if you had taken the time to read my last few posts you would have seen I have been putting forward a Commonwealth tank option with Australia and Canada maybe even India but then India maybe the wrong skin tone for you to work with

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

mr.fred wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:The point is weather it is eurofighter or frigates or tanks work share is now a thing in most projects and is doable
Eurofighter, where France pulled out and partner disagreement has caused delays and cost.
Tanks, such as MRAV , where France pulled out and then the UK did, or MBT80 where it all fell through?
Frigates, like the Type 26 where its being licensed to other countries, not developed under work share agreements.

I think that the current feeling is that trying to split up the design and build from the start doesn’t make the savings claimed.
I didn't say it was cheap but the fact is we can't design and build a tank on our own on the cheap work share is here to stay and if we want something that is not Euro pack or US we will need to find partner's

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 »

Tempest414 wrote:the fact is we can't design and build a tank on our own on the cheap work share is here to stay and if we want something that is not Euro pack or US we will need to find partner's
When it was the time to start to look at the next thing, after Centurion, we had a (secret) project with Israel... and after 20 yrs of it going nowhere, they went there own way: Merkava 1,2,3,4

We did Chally1 (was so bad that we donated them), Ch2 (not bad) and now: Ch3 is starting to look good
- we should be into the 4th edition :!: though, by now
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

Tempest414 wrote:I didn't say it was cheap but the fact is we can't design and build a tank on our own on the cheap work share is here to stay and if we want something that is not Euro pack or US we will need to find partner's
I cited two cases where one of the original partners left a collaboration and made their own and another that worked on a different model. These can be used as examples that it is possible to go it alone rather than seek workshare agreements at the start.
It’s likely that some components would not be locally sourced, but I reckon one could make an AFV from UK-based firms if that was required. Gun and ammunition design would have to be licensed or rebuilt (at some considerable cost) but otherwise the facilities exist.
To make the lowest risk MBT it would be sensible to import or license some systems but to base a vehicle with a 2030’s in service date entirely on current technology (particularly automotives) would be a mistake.

I think that in order to get people on board to cover the cost of bringing a vehicle from prototype to production requires product, not promises. So the start is to produce a prototype (or several)

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 »

mr.fred wrote: the start is to produce a prototype (or several)
I love that photo-gallery of pics where men in white coats - from The establishment - inspect the first CVR(T) prototype
... find it @TD

Those were the days; how can we get even close (I know we can't get back to that set up)?
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)

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

mr.fred wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:I didn't say it was cheap but the fact is we can't design and build a tank on our own on the cheap work share is here to stay and if we want something that is not Euro pack or US we will need to find partner's
I cited two cases where one of the original partners left a collaboration and made their own and another that worked on a different model. These can be used as examples that it is possible to go it alone rather than seek workshare agreements at the start.
It’s likely that some components would not be locally sourced, but I reckon one could make an AFV from UK-based firms if that was required. Gun and ammunition design would have to be licensed or rebuilt (at some considerable cost) but otherwise the facilities exist.
To make the lowest risk MBT it would be sensible to import or license some systems but to base a vehicle with a 2030’s in service date entirely on current technology (particularly automotives) would be a mistake.

I think that in order to get people on board to cover the cost of bringing a vehicle from prototype to production requires product, not promises. So the start is to produce a prototype (or several)
I have no doubt that the UK can design and build its own MBT from a tec point of view its weather it has the political will and money. However I to would like to see us try after all we have designed and built our own aircraft carriers , Frigates , SSN , SSBN but as said if not I would like us to try for a Commonwealth program rather than go with Euro tank or the US

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

Tempest414 wrote:
mr.fred wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:I didn't say it was cheap but the fact is we can't design and build a tank on our own on the cheap work share is here to stay and if we want something that is not Euro pack or US we will need to find partner's
I cited two cases where one of the original partners left a collaboration and made their own and another that worked on a different model. These can be used as examples that it is possible to go it alone rather than seek workshare agreements at the start.
It’s likely that some components would not be locally sourced, but I reckon one could make an AFV from UK-based firms if that was required. Gun and ammunition design would have to be licensed or rebuilt (at some considerable cost) but otherwise the facilities exist.
To make the lowest risk MBT it would be sensible to import or license some systems but to base a vehicle with a 2030’s in service date entirely on current technology (particularly automotives) would be a mistake.

I think that in order to get people on board to cover the cost of bringing a vehicle from prototype to production requires product, not promises. So the start is to produce a prototype (or several)
I have no doubt that the UK can design and build its own MBT from a tec point of view its weather it has the political will and money. However I to would like to see us try after all we have designed and built our own aircraft carriers , Frigates , SSN , SSBN but as said if not I would like us to try for a Commonwealth program rather than go with Euro tank or the US
Iv been following the last few days of this descution and to be honest I do like the idea of a “commonwealth” MBT with our selves Aus and Canada as both of theirs will need to be renewed by the early 2030s. The question I have though is even with all 3 nations will the order be large enough unless all 3 up there numbers, as I can see right now would be an ordered of only around 400 odd if we go like for like.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

keeping with the Commonwealth Singapore would need to replace its 150+ plus the like of Oman could push the number up to 600 or 700 . I also think once you have a group like that exports may come however the UK would need to commit to 200+

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes there will be a lot of potential customers for a next generation Tank in the mid 2030s, but there is going to be stiff competition, not just from the traditional culprits like the USA and a Franco/German collaborations, but newer producers like Korea and Turkey and the Former could be in a very strong position if they win the IFV contract.

By the way why do the Australian Army need over 400 modern IFVs yet we seem to need less than 300? Ok they only have one Armoured Regiment but they also will have cavalry in Boxers and Light Infantry in the Bushmaster and its successor. The argument that we have to maintain SSBNs and SSNs doesn't really hold water when it comes to how much bang for your buck they and us manage to get. Their Navy is going to end up with 15 high end Escorts and 12 state of the art conventional submarines with AIP. Their Air Force will have around five fast jet squadrons with more than adequate transport, tanker, ISTAR support as well. All this doesn't show the UK in a good light which is a bit depressing.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

The makers on one of best and most successful main battle tanks in the world is currently setting up a major production facility in the UK to build boxer. Suggestions here seem to be going out of the way to conjure up tie ups with every one but the one that’s staring us in the face. Long term industrial strategy investment development there isn’t much need to over think it.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

SW1 wrote:The makers on one of best and most successful main battle tanks in the world is currently setting up a major production facility in the UK to build boxer. Suggestions here seem to be going out of the way to conjure up tie ups with every one but the one that’s staring us in the face. Long term industrial strategy investment development there isn’t much need to over think it.
Wait until France and Germany build MCGS then see if we can license build?
Jake1992 wrote:The question I have though is even with all 3 nations will the order be large enough unless all 3 up there numbers, as I can see right now would be an ordered of only around 400 odd if we go like for like
I figure that they way to address the numbers problem is to widen the utility. Make it an MBT and IFV and AVRE and artillery and APC.
Plus go for heavy modularity on those items that can be readily changed, so you can scale the weight over as wide a range as possible. It’ll mostly be protection, but if modern automotive gear can be scaled to the GVW that might help as well. That way you could remove the need for a “medium weight” fleet of tracked vehicles.

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

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

Post by SW1 »

mr.fred wrote:
SW1 wrote:The makers on one of best and most successful main battle tanks in the world is currently setting up a major production facility in the UK to build boxer. Suggestions here seem to be going out of the way to conjure up tie ups with every one but the one that’s staring us in the face. Long term industrial strategy investment development there isn’t much need to over think it.
Wait until France and Germany build MCGS then see if we can license build?
Jake1992 wrote:The question I have though is even with all 3 nations will the order be large enough unless all 3 up there numbers, as I can see right now would be an ordered of only around 400 odd if we go like for like
I figure that they way to address the numbers problem is to widen the utility. Make it an MBT and IFV and AVRE and artillery and APC.
Plus go for heavy modularity on those items that can be readily changed, so you can scale the weight over as wide a range as possible. It’ll mostly be protection, but if modern automotive gear can be scaled to the GVW that might help as well. That way you could remove the need for a “medium weight” fleet of tracked vehicles.
In a word yes. I know this controversial but the interim step is license building leopard to replace challenger rather than the turret upgrade to challenger and use that as leverage to get the supply chain involved in MCGS which we would then license build as a follow on. As long as we are allowed the IP to modify and design/Integrate future systems in the UK.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

SW1 wrote:As long as we are allowed the IP to modify and design/Integrate future systems in the UK.
Why would we need that? If we’re just going to license build German kit, we’ll just take their upgrades as well.

Post Reply