FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

that means we are down to 199 plus 75 Stored lets hope we pledge to upgrade 190 to CH-3 standard

Mr Carrot
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 27 May 2015, 15:07

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

Post by Mr Carrot »

Just a tidbit that came out of a conversation at the Reform Club.

Focus is shifting onto the turret numbers produced (more) with the umming and ahhing about chassis numbers being less of an issue.

Read into that what you will (I took it as a CH3 turret on something like a K2 BP etc.).
These users liked the author Mr Carrot for the post (total 2):
Ron5TheLoneRanger

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

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

Post by dmereifield »

Mr Carrot wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 13:28 Just a tidbit that came out of a conversation at the Reform Club.

Focus is shifting onto the turret numbers produced (more) with the umming and ahhing about chassis numbers being less of an issue.

Read into that what you will (I took it as a CH3 turret on something like a K2 BP etc.).
Can you elaborate or speculate a little?

sol
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

Seems like, after all, UK will not double the number of CR2 tanks, intended to be sent to Ukraine. So, for now, it is just 14 originally announced


Mr Carrot
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: 27 May 2015, 15:07

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

Post by Mr Carrot »

dmereifield wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 21:34
Can you elaborate or speculate a little?
Policy discussion with MOD CS - so non technical but they option being discussed was to announce the turrets as "tanks" and worry about the chassis later.

Can't go into much more detail due to SC etc.
These users liked the author Mr Carrot for the post:
dmereifield

TheLoneRanger
Member
Posts: 331
Joined: 01 Jul 2020, 19:15
United Kingdom

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

Post by TheLoneRanger »

Mr Carrot wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 13:28 Just a tidbit that came out of a conversation at the Reform Club.

Focus is shifting onto the turret numbers produced (more) with the umming and ahhing about chassis numbers being less of an issue.

Read into that what you will (I took it as a CH3 turret on something like a K2 BP etc.).
Interesting idea for sure. Are turrets that interchangeable? ie do the turrent mounting points now follow some kind of standard as far as dimensions go ?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

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

Post by mr.fred »

TheLoneRanger wrote: 06 Mar 2023, 17:28 Interesting idea for sure. Are turrets that interchangeable? ie do the turrent mounting points now follow some kind of standard as far as dimensions go ?
Depends on the turret and the hull. I suspect you couldn’t whip a turret off an existing tank and drop it on a wholly different model hull, but changing the physical interface wouldn’t be a huge modification.
You’d still have to deal with turret basket size, how and where you access any ammunition in the hull, electrical and electric interfaces.
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post:
SD67

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

maybe they are trying to do what John Cocherill just did with it 3105 turret on the Leopard 1

sol
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

CR3 is progressing with new contract signed, this time with MilDef to manufacture Generic Vehicle Architecture-compliant Processors and Ethernet Switches.


RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

That appears to be consistent with BOXER (but not AJAX).

Online
albedo
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by albedo »



Interesting to see the US-uniformed instructor/evaluator (?) there as part of the training team.
These users liked the author albedo for the post:
SKB

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

albedo wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 16:13

Interesting to see the US-uniformed instructor/evaluator (?) there as part of the training team.
Gunnery exchanges have been common for decades.

Online
albedo
Member
Posts: 178
Joined: 27 Jun 2017, 21:44
United Kingdom

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

Post by albedo »

RunningStrong wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 20:22 Gunnery exchanges have been common for decades.
Yes, I'm sure. Just quite a coincidence that the exchange gunner happened to figure in this particular video. Not suggesting anything sinister or similar in it, but just caught my eye.

Zeno
Member
Posts: 170
Joined: 12 Jun 2022, 02:24
Australia

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

Post by Zeno »

The 120mm uranium rounds being supplied have been stated as for the use of the Challenger tank would it be correct to say they cant be used by other tanks for providing extra lethality to older tanks ?Is it known at this stage if the Challenger tanks supplied will have their side armour?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1409
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

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

Post by tomuk »

Zeno wrote: 28 Mar 2023, 22:41 The 120mm uranium rounds being supplied have been stated as for the use of the Challenger tank would it be correct to say they cant be used by other tanks for providing extra lethality to older tanks ?Is it known at this stage if the Challenger tanks supplied will have their side armour?
The 120mm rounds for Challenger are only compatible with its rifled barrel. Abrams and Leopard have a smoothbore gun. As do Russian tanks albeit different calibre since T64.
These users liked the author tomuk for the post:
Zeno

sol
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

Interesting article about current state of the CR2 fleet
The British Army has just 157 Challenger 2 main battle tanks (MBTs) either on or available to undertake operations within a 30-day work-up period, out of a theoretical fleet of 227 vehicles.
Ukraine will receive 14 operational Challenger 2s taken directly from the operational fleet, with 14 then brought up from long-term storage to backfill the UK operational fleet.
Given the current numbers of Challenger 2 tanks available for operations, and the materiel state of the remaining 70 vehicles in storage, it is not clear how many more could be upgraded. Taking current numbers and discounting vehicles in storage, a theoretical increase could be for as few as nine extra Challenger 3 tanks, should the refreshed IR and DCP deem the planned 148 upgraded tanks to be insufficient.

Challenger 2 tanks still in storage will be in a range of conditions, from those that need considerable working up before being made ready for operations, to platforms that have been cannibalised for spare parts and in effect unserviceable.
So even if there is a decision to increase number of CR3 tanks, seems like there is not many left that could actually be upgraded. Author theorise with at least 9 additional that are available, with possible some more from storage depending on their state. Not really encouraging but even if fleet could be increased to 160 or more it could easy the task of keeping CR3 active fleet, even with just two regiments, fully operational. But it also show that there is not much left to give away without seriously compromising active tank fleet.

UK should really start working on CR3 replacement as soon as fleet upgrade is done, either by joining some other project or developing its own alone or with partners like Sweden, Finland or Italy for example. After all, by 2035-2040, lot of European users will need to consider replacing of their tanks, either by MGCS or something else. And there might be a chance for UK to further develop their military industry, based on experience of developing a new turret for CR3. If that is what it seek. Unless license production of someone else equipment is good enough or just straight buying from abroad.

https://www.army-technology.com/news/br ... perations/

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

To be clear what is being said here is we had 302 CH2's of which 227 were deemed main stream and 75 were in deep storage now what is being said is we have 157 operational 70 in ? and 75 in deep storage

Could it be the author of the article has got it wrong and what we have is

157 ready to fight
70 in deep maintenance
75 in deep storage

I mean if we have 157 operational there will be a number in deep maintenance to allow follow ?

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

Also we have some 288 hulls in total after giving 14 to Ukraine so it is just down to money if we want more CH3's being someone who has rebuilt spitfires almost from a makers plate anything that has been built can be built

sol
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

Tempest414 wrote: 30 Mar 2023, 10:15 To be clear what is being said here is we had 302 CH2's of which 227 were deemed main stream and 75 were in deep storage now what is being said is we have 157 operational 70 in ? and 75 in deep storage

Could it be the author of the article has got it wrong and what we have is

157 ready to fight
70 in deep maintenance
75 in deep storage

I mean if we have 157 operational there will be a number in deep maintenance to allow follow ?
Not sure what you mean by deep maintenance. Article suggest that 14 sent to Ukraine are taken from "long-term storage" which would suggest that they were subtracted from those 75, to bring fleet back to 227 in total. But keep in mind that article is saying that 157 tanks are "available to undertake operations within a 30-day work-up period". Maybe some more could be bring into same state over longer period. So who know, it is still hard to tell how many additional tanks theoretically could be upgraded. But my guess that main issue might not be number of hulls but finding money for more tanks.

Online
User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

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

Post by Tempest414 »

So the way I read it we have 157 CH2's ready to go within 30 days. The 14 sent to Ukraine have been back filled from the 75 in long term storage leaving 61 in long term storage this to me means that if we 157 ready to go within 30 out of the working fleet of 227 then 70 must be in deep maintenance i.e 60 to 90 day work period with the turret off power pack out or under going a upgrade of some sort

I got the idea that the author was mixing up the 75 in long term storage with the 70 in long term (deep) maintenance ether way we have ether 227 or 213 CH2's in the working fleet and 75 or 61 in long term storage

sol
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »



So probably no DU munition for CR3.

SD67
Senior Member
Posts: 1036
Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 09:49
United Kingdom

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

Post by SD67 »

Mr Carrot wrote: 05 Mar 2023, 13:28 Just a tidbit that came out of a conversation at the Reform Club.

Focus is shifting onto the turret numbers produced (more) with the umming and ahhing about chassis numbers being less of an issue.

Read into that what you will (I took it as a CH3 turret on something like a K2 BP etc.).
I was arguing for that a year ago. Massive production line in Poland - just put the turret on a K2 chassis

sol
Member
Posts: 527
Joined: 01 Jul 2021, 09:11
Bosnia & Herzegovina

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

Post by sol »

SD67 wrote: 28 Apr 2023, 19:04 I was arguing for that a year ago. Massive production line in Poland - just put the turret on a K2 chassis
It is little to late for that. Poland already got 15 K2 so far, and the rest out of some 180 will follow, and it signed a contract for local production of K2PL version which will be developed together with South Korea.

Depending on how good new turret will be, especially compared to one mounted on Leo 2A6 and 2A7, there might be potential opportunity when some of those Leo 2 users, like Sweden, Finland or many others decide to upgrade their fleets. As reportedly turret could fit Leo 2 chassis, it might me alternative to just upgrading Leo 2 to latest standard. But for that it should be at least equal, if not better and of course price would have to be right.

But there could be lot of license right issue, and RM would probably prefer to sell Kf-51 instead, and I doubt KMW would be very happy if something like that happen. So I don't think that option is very probable.

Still, this could be a very important step to revitalize UK tank production, and based on experience learned on CR3 upgrade, it could consider developing its successor, with partners or alone. That would have much more potential as seems like MGCS is in troubles and far from being certain. And so far, there is no clear indications what will happen with Abrams and will (and with what) be replaced.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »

UK's Challenger 2 wins NATO competition

(Forces News) 23rd May 2023
The UK's Challenger 2 tank has blasted away the competition in Nato's Exercise Iron Spear.

The armoured vehicle competition for main battle tanks, held in Estonia, saw a Challenger 2 tank, from the Queen's Royal Hussars beat a German Leopard 2 tank, operated by Spanish personnel and the third-placed American M1 Abrams crew.

Major Anthony Kaulback, Chief of Staff for the enhanced Forward Presence Battlegroup in the country, said the regiment was one of those who had donated Challenger 2 tanks to Ukrainian personnel to use in their fight against Russia.
These users liked the author SKB for the post (total 2):
bobpTempest414

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3955
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

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

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Making a difference?

These users liked the author Poiuytrewq for the post:
wargame_insomniac

Post Reply