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 »

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.
Very much behind that idea (it is also similar to the line up building up behind Armata). Other than that only Merkava/ Namer have followed the logic - and for some reason the Namers were made in the USA (perhaps the hulls shipped over?).
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)

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: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.
In very much the same way the RN acquired type 31 or the Australians type 26. We may chose different modifications at a different time, like a different communication system, perhaps a different defensive aid system or different add on armour packages.

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

SW1 wrote:In very much the same way the RN acquired type 31 or the Australians type 26. We may chose different modifications at a different time, like a different communication system, perhaps a different defensive aid system or different add on armour packages.
You want something different you ask the supplier. You don’t need IP for that.

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:In very much the same way the RN acquired type 31 or the Australians type 26. We may chose different modifications at a different time, like a different communication system, perhaps a different defensive aid system or different add on armour packages.
You want something different you ask the supplier. You don’t need IP for that.
It’s better to have than not especially if your funding modifications that may mean the final configuration is sold on to others so you gain on that investment.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: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.
I find this interesting I am I missing something the UK have just ordered 580 Ajax's plus 500+ Boxer.

We have 300+ Jackal & Coyote , 600+ Foxhound & Husky , 300+ Mastiff Ridgeback & Wolfhound , 500+ Warrior & Bulldog , 250+ CVR(T)

So we should end up with 580 Ajax , 530 Boxer , 380 Warrior , 300+ Jackal , 390 Foxhound . if we added 600 Bushmaster's to this we would be in good shape .

inch
Senior Member
Posts: 1018
Joined: 27 May 2015, 21:35

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

Post by inch »

And about 3 upgraded tanks , tempest 414

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

SW1 wrote:It’s better to have than not especially if your funding modifications that may mean the final configuration is sold on to others so you gain on that investment.
Why would the supplier support competition?

I mean you could buy IP, but it’d cost you and would it be worth it?
Considering our usual upgrade programmes and all.
Then how do you use it? Farm it off to other companies? Give it back to the supplier who built the thing in the first place?

Repulse
Donator
Posts: 2807
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:46
United Kingdom

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

Post by Repulse »

”We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." - Lord Palmerston

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 »

From that article.
"In 2018, the MGCS consortium showed a precursor to the future vehicle at Eurosatory showcasing a Leopard 2 hull fitted with the lighter turret of the Leclerc MBT. A key attribute of the vehicle was its lower weight, allowing it to traverse lower load bridges. "
I would say the weight envelope for the development is interesting, but might go out of the window if the bigger gun is opted for
- however, the autoloader would stay
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)

jonas
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:20
United Kingdom

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

Post by jonas »

Challenger upgrade takes major steps. KRH troops find it tiring to mount such a monster :-

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... ank-steps/

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

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

Post by TheLoneRanger »

jonas wrote:Challenger upgrade takes major steps. KRH troops find it tiring to mount such a monster :-

https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events ... ank-steps/
We eitherupgrad the Challenger tanks, or we go for an American option where the economies of scale mean that there will be longer term support and sustainment programme at good value for our money. For this reason, if we decide to not develop a tank in the UK, then we should really look at USA options for their tank development programmes if we are looking at buying off the shelf, or a customised version. They will buy in scale and therefore long term support, maintenance and mid-life ugrades will not be a problem. This is the problem with the EU approach where it is often a vanity project that is poorly executed and ends up being an expensive in procurement and maintenance..

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

TheLoneRanger wrote:They will buy in scale and therefore long term support, maintenance and mid-life ugrades will not be a problem.
You’re not familiar with American AFV procurement, I take it?

User avatar
The Armchair Soldier
Site Admin
Posts: 1699
Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
Contact:
United Kingdom

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

Post by The Armchair Soldier »





The upgrade contract has been signed at £750m covering around 150 units.

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

£5m apiece at this stage. That’s not awful, certainly cheaper than buying new.
It was £46m for the competition stage, which isn’t much more per tank.

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 »

Is it cheaper in the long run though? Putting new turrets on old vehicles has not got well so far.

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

SW1 wrote:Is it cheaper in the long run though? Putting new turrets on old vehicles has not got well so far.
It’s worked for the people who would be selling us “new”.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 275
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

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

Post by Cooper »

£750m down the drain, just to keep up the illusion that 150 Challengers are a credible force... :crazy:

I bet they'd struggle to put more than half that number on the actual battlefield as well.

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 »

A Yin and Yang force (rumours...)
- one rgmnt with Armata killer 130 mm
- the back up one with smoothbore 120mm
+ 30 or so tanks with what we have today, to shoot up the ammo stocks :wtf: in training... presumably with the same optics that they will be training for

The first rgmnt (or its tanks) could use Conqueror name, as the task would be the same as was planned for the name-sake
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)

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:A Yin and Yang force (rumours...)
Seems like a silly idea. Leave the 130mm for future MBT or as an option for those vehicles not upgraded to 120 smoothbore rather than having a split fleet and split ammunition stocks, logistics etc.

Maybe have one or two as reference vehicles or for trials which can feed into the next generation MBT would be the limit for at least a decade. If there is money for it. IMHO.

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 »

I suppose if the tanks that receive the 120mm smoothbore are also capable of taking the 130mm, then depending on how any successor develops we could refit the remainder of the fleet later on with little fuss and cost, mainly requiring the obvious new hardware and software changes to the FCS. We might get a good deal from Rheinmetall overall as we would be basically the test subjects for the new 130mm, providing them and other with valuable data on the gun.

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 »

Just the bragging rights :) would be worth the extra money (if any) spent
- guinea pigs have surprising bargaining power
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)

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Just the bragging rights :) would be worth the extra money (if any) spent
- guinea pigs have surprising bargaining power
How much bargaining power have we obtained being the CT40 guinea pigs?

tomuk
Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

mr.fred wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Just the bragging rights :) would be worth the extra money (if any) spent
- guinea pigs have surprising bargaining power
How much bargaining power have we obtained being the CT40 guinea pigs?
Were not the only guinea pigs with the CT40 the French seem to be getting on ok with their version on the Jaguar.
Maybe getting someone who knows how to build a turret rather than Lockheed Martin Ampthill would have worked out better.

On the 130mm for Challenger it might make sense if that will definitely be the future gun on the new euro tank.

What people seem to forget with Rheinmetall is they make guns not tanks. Krauss Maffei Wegmann build the chassis. With KMW going off with Nexter who make the gun on the Leclerc. Rheinmetall need a new chassis or at least the capabilities to stay in the game.

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 »

tomuk wrote:Rheinmetall need a new chassis or at least the capabilities to stay in the game.
This is what I meant with bargaining power. The solution exists and is looking for ways 'to market'
- the CTA example is in no way similar as we went to a partnership, to develop the solution practically from ground 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
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 »

Worth grabbing tomorrow's Telegraph:
Rheinmetall is set to win £750m contract to upgrade 150 of the UK's ageing Challenger tanks
By Alan Tovey, Industry Editor 18 March 2021 • 6:40pm
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)

Post Reply