FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

[Phil Sayers]

The purpose here would not be to equip Ukraine with a large Challenger 2 fleet but instead to symbolically be the first to send Western tanks thus encouraging the transfer of many more Leopard 2s and Abrahams. We did similar when we sent the Sea Kings although nobody has (yet) followed that up by transferring a larger number of Western helicopters.

Given that we are not intending to replace all our MBTs with Challenger 3, I cannot really see a downside at all. Sure some people at home and abroad might start shrieking about WW3 but those people would be numpties anyway. Poland sending 200+ T72 is way more escalatory than sending a handful of Challengers but the Russians did diddly squat in response.

[RunningStrong]

What are they going to do for ammunition? Recovery vehicles? Bridging?

Seems entirely a daft idea to me and another nail in the ability for Ukraine to maintain a fleet of increasingly different vehicle spares and ammunition (see AMX10 ammo for example).

[Phil Sayers]

What are they going to do for ammunition? Recovery vehicles? Bridging?

Seems entirely a daft idea to me and another nail in the ability for Ukraine to maintain a fleet of increasingly different vehicle spares and ammunition (see AMX10 ammo for example).

It's not daft if we have been talking to other countries about sending MBT types that would make more sense (Leopards and Abrams most obviously) and their response has been "After you mate."

[SW1]

Give them the lot and start over with a tank that isn’t an orphan. Eg leopard or abrams

[sol]

Give them the lot and start over with a tank that isn’t an orphan. Eg leopard or abrams

And how much would that cost including all other vehicles that would require replacing like Titan, Trojan, CRARRV and training vehicles? Australia is paying $3.5 billion just for 75 tanks, 29 assault breacher vehicles, 17 joint assault bridge vehicles and six armoured recovery vehicles. UK would need almost twice as much tanks and more recovery vehicles.

Sorry but that is ridicules. Whole idea of giving CR2 to Ukrainians is ridicules. It looks more like as a symbolic measure to force other to consider sending tanks, but in practice not very useful.

[SW1]

Give them the lot and start over with a tank that isn’t an orphan. Eg leopard or abrams

And how much would that cost including all other vehicles that would require replacing like Titan, Trojan, CRARRV and training vehicles? Australia is paying $3.5 billion just for 75 tanks, 29 assault breacher vehicles, 17 joint assault bridge vehicles and six armoured recovery vehicles. UK would need almost twice as much tanks and more recovery vehicles.

Sorry but that is ridicules. Whole idea of giving CR2 to Ukrainians is ridicules. It looks more like as a symbolic measure to force other to consider sending tanks, but in practice not very useful.

Well the mid life upgrades of well used uk armoured vehicles has gone so well over the past decade I’m sure challengers will go without a hitch.

As for cost I would guess as we would need less than Poland this maybe a ball park of which a portion would come from the reserve

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... curements/

Polish Defence Minister Mariusz Błaszczak on Tuesday signed a deal worth about $4.75 billion to buy 250 M1A2 Abrams SEPv3 from the United States. Deliveries are to begin this year, with 28 tanks to be procured to the country’s armed forces. In addition to the tanks, the contract also comprises a technical support and logistics package, as well as training and ammunition for the tanks, according to the ministry.

[RunningStrong]

What are they going to do for ammunition? Recovery vehicles? Bridging?

Seems entirely a daft idea to me and another nail in the ability for Ukraine to maintain a fleet of increasingly different vehicle spares and ammunition (see AMX10 ammo for example).

It's not daft if we have been talking to other countries about sending MBT types that would make more sense (Leopards and Abrams most obviously) and their response has been "After you mate."

Believe it when I see it. French and Germans have both provided AFV on the back of their own fleet replacement plans.

[sol]

https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... curements/

Polish Defence Minister Mariusz Błaszczak on Tuesday signed a deal worth about $4.75 billion to buy 250 M1A2 Abrams SEPv3 from the United States. Deliveries are to begin this year, with 28 tanks to be procured to the country’s armed forces. In addition to the tanks, the contract also comprises a technical support and logistics package, as well as training and ammunition for the tanks, according to the ministry.

Australia will actually pay $2.5 billion (AUD3.5 billion), so my mistake. Still way over the price UK is paying to upgrade CR3. Not counting additional payment for add trophy or any other APS (as that is not covered in contract), or penalties for broken contract with RBLS which would probably be in millions, or all the money already spent so far. You are saying it like it is easy to get that amount of money without any issues.

There is no chance that UK will scrap CR3 upgrade and go for other tank. Whole process already started and any other alternative is just to expensive. So whole this discussion is pointless.

[mr.fred]

Sending a squadron-ish could have some benefits.
It’s not enough to impair the planned upgrades
It’s enough to test them in high intensity combat
The CR3 has new armour compared to CR2, so there is less risk of losing current armour tech. To this end I suspect that any vehicles deployed would not feature much of the up-armour kit seen in theatre entry standard configurations.

Compared to Australian and Polish purchases, CR3 is bargain city, especially when you consider that the Australian tanks being replaced have been in service for about half the time that CR2 has.

[inch]

Frankly I'm surprised the get rid of everything military government ( all colours) hasn't jumped at the chance to send as many tanks from our limited stocks ,in a yes minister type affair ,ie if we send all the tanks leaving only just 148 left , people can't force us to upgrade more for a sensible attrition reserve or larger frontline squadrons ,plus we look good in eyes of west helping out Ukraine,and saving us having to spend money ,a typical yes minister fudge

[wargame_insomniac]

Frankly I'm surprised the get rid of everything military government ( all colours) hasn't jumped at the chance to send as many tanks from our limited stocks ,in a yes minister type affair ,ie if we send all the tanks leaving only just 148 left , people can't force us to upgrade more for a sensible attrition reserve or larger frontline squadrons ,plus we look good in eyes of west helping out Ukraine,and saving us having to spend money ,a typical yes minister fudge

Its why I hope that those NATO countries with older model Abrams or Leopard can be persuaded to part with some to Ukraine - Ukraine does need more armoured vehicles, especially if engaging in offensive manuveur counter-attacks in the spring, but I would prefer NATO did nt part with the more recent models.

But we need to upgrade as many of the 227 Challengers as possible to have sufficient spare tanks to cover repairs or maintenance requirements in the future.

[Tempest414]

What I would like to see is 180 go through upgrade to allow for 3 regiments of 50 tanks ( 46 + 4 spare ) and Reserve regiment of 30 tanks ( 2 Sqn's of 11 plus 8 spear )

[inch]

Yes 148 is just a comical amount for our country's wealth tbh no matter what people say about spending on other things (NHS etc) they sure can easily waste billions down the plug hole on wasteful crap but can't find the protection of the country adequately, just like I'm sure the lefty trouble adverse west governments are trying to snatch defeat out of victory for Ukraine in being so pathetically slow in supplying Ukraine in the heavy armour and longer range missiles that everyone knows they need and training in adequate time that they have been told for months and months,time they grew a pair,but yes not sure how we could increase tank numbers tbh ,maybe just upgrade the 148 then join European effort asap ? For future increase to maybe 380 including reserve?

[SW1]

And interesting thread


If we want to be bold rip the plaster off and stop wasting money going down a dead end street.

[Zeno]

The tanks currently on the Ukrainian battlefield are under fifty tons t-90 the heaviest at 46 the Challenger 2 at 64 it should worth keeping in mind that many bridges wont take this weight ,if Russian designed tanks are getting stuck in the mud why will the heavier Challenger be exempt ,this question could be asked of the Abrams and Leopard as well

[RunningStrong]

And interesting thread

If we want to be bold rip the plaster off and stop wasting money going down a dead end street.

Hasn't Franny written at length about capability gaps previously and now he's suggesting... A capability gap?

[SW1]

And interesting thread

If we want to be bold rip the plaster off and stop wasting money going down a dead end street.

Hasn't Franny written at length about capability gaps previously and now he's suggesting... A capability gap?

He has. And in the same token not wrong to suggest it now. Though in this case I would suggest it should be more like the decision to remove harrier in 2010 with a clear plan to what replaces it. Not a gap with no plan

[mrclark303]

Yes 148 is just a comical amount for our country's wealth tbh no matter what people say about spending on other things (NHS etc) they sure can easily waste billions down the plug hole on wasteful crap but can't find the protection of the country adequately, just like I'm sure the lefty trouble adverse west governments are trying to snatch defeat out of victory for Ukraine in being so pathetically slow in supplying Ukraine in the heavy armour and longer range missiles that everyone knows they need and training in adequate time that they have been told for months and months,time they grew a pair,but yes not sure how we could increase tank numbers tbh ,maybe just upgrade the 148 then join European effort asap ? For future increase to maybe 380 including reserve?

The 148 Chally 3 order is quite frankly pathetic, the number is 'so' far below critical mass it's of questionable utility.

Chally 3 is a developmental cul-de-sac, with no possibility of sales, just pointless really, all smacks of the usual job creation scheme, with piss tax payers money against the wall privileges to me.

[mr.fred]

The 148 Chally 3 order is quite frankly pathetic, the number is 'so' far below critical mass it's of questionable utility.

Chally 3 is a developmental cul-de-sac, with no possibility of sales, just pointless really, all smacks of the usual job creation scheme, with piss tax payers money against the wall privileges to me.

What are the other options though?

From what I can see, the alternative would be to throw more than twice the amount of taxpayers money into somebody else's pocket.

[RunningStrong]

And interesting thread

If we want to be bold rip the plaster off and stop wasting money going down a dead end street.

Hasn't Franny written at length about capability gaps previously and now he's suggesting... A capability gap?

He has. And in the same token not wrong to suggest it now. Though in this case I would suggest it should be more like the decision to remove harrier in 2010 with a clear plan to what replaces it. Not a gap with no plan

A plan to replace it would be a purchase order for a replacement. There's no way we'll have that in 6 months, let alone 12.

[Phil Sayers]

Polish President announces that Poland will supply 'a company' of Leopard 2 tanks and anticipates similar announcements from others:

[SW1]

And interesting thread

If we want to be bold rip the plaster off and stop wasting money going down a dead end street.

Hasn't Franny written at length about capability gaps previously and now he's suggesting... A capability gap?

He has. And in the same token not wrong to suggest it now. Though in this case I would suggest it should be more like the decision to remove harrier in 2010 with a clear plan to what replaces it. Not a gap with no plan

A plan to replace it would be a purchase order for a replacement. There's no way we'll have that in 6 months, let alone 12.

Well there’s an update to the review based on Ukraine underway so perfect time to agree a deal.

[sol]

Well there’s an update to the review based on Ukraine underway so perfect time to agree a deal.

And money is not an issue I guess. UK has money to pay penalties for broken contract and to pay almost a double price for the new fleet of tanks and support vehicles. And how many would they buy? Same 148 which almost everyone is considering pathetic or more?

[Phil Sayers]

Personally, I think the most sensible thing we could do is up the Challenger 3 order to around 180 and then send the remaining 50 or so Challenger 2s to Ukraine along with sufficient spares, ammunition etc. That is an improvement for ourselves on current plans and, while sending 10 or so is a symbolic gesture that may not be worth the trouble for Ukraine to take into service, sending 50 would be a very different matter.

[SW1]

Well there’s an update to the review based on Ukraine underway so perfect time to agree a deal.

And money is not an issue I guess. UK has money to pay penalties for broken contract and to pay almost a double price for the new fleet of tanks and support vehicles. And how many would they buy? Same 148 which almost everyone is considering pathetic or more?

No contact broken push all challengers thru bae to equip them for deployment to Ukraine granted won’t be the same as the current upgrade but times a different.

You’re taking purchase price as the driving factor I’m considering full thru life cost and being part of a large user base going fwd reducing whole life cost. The agreement that would need to be in place prior to doing it would be funds would be made available to replace the equipment transferred as is the case with the other stuff we’ve sent and then an allocation from within the defence budget to cover the remainder of the purchase.

How many, there would need to be enough to equip 2 armoured brigades. I do not consider 148 pathetic.

If you ask what I would set 2 conditions, 1 provided Ajax is given the decisions to go ahead and there is agreement from GD to fit a uk modular armour package and UK sight system then I would ask GD land systems to assemble and integrate M1 tanks at there facility in wales to follow on from AJAX, possibly to the x standard if the US goes down that route.

In the mean time and to cover, get 2 brigades set up on boxer as a medium mech capability which should offset BAEs contract worries.

In future the army then has GD looking after its heavy brigades with Abrams and Ajax and Bae the medium with boxer.