UK Defence Forum

And about 3 upgraded tanks , tempest 414

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?

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

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/

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..

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?

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

£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.

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

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”.

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

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

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 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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

Do we have any idea of the size of Armoured Regiment we are keeping, Type 56 or Type 44? In theory we could stand up three of the latter but would have to use unmodified Ch2s for BATUS, and would only have eighteen or so upgraded tanks for a reserve. It would allow us to form three Mechanised Brigades though if each Armoured Regiment was accompanied by three Mechanised Infantry Battalions in Boxer IFV. This would allow one Tank Squadron to be attached to each Battalion and therefore one Tank Troop to each Company.

Just trying to keep my brain occupied until the release next week.

Another warm-up; namely, what could be the rationale for keeping the existing gun for some while upgrading the others?

We have 22 Streetfighter kits, and if any/some of these enhancements will be carried through
https://www.army-technology.com/feature ... llenger-2/
then the role of the gun would be (mainly) to put HE on target.

Have we been able to source any new HESH rounds to compensate for nearly all remaining stocks have past their shelf live? One issue with the "Streetfighter" though is the length of the L30 gun. Not the best for fighting in an urban area, maybe a "Sawn off" version could be devised in house?

For me step one all 150 Challengers should get the 120 mm smooth bore gun as part of the 750 million upgrade contract.

Then step two the Army hand over 3 more Challengers to be upgraded to step 1 level complete with the 120mm gun and then have the 130mm gun fitted plus any other kit it wants to see how it works with a view to a possible 2030's upgrade as we can't allow another 20 year gap between upgrades

Lord Jim wrote:Have we been able to source any new HESH rounds to compensate for nearly all remaining stocks have past their shelf live? One issue with the "Streetfighter" though is the length of the L30 gun. Not the best for fighting in an urban area, maybe a "Sawn off" version could be devised in house?

I don’t really understand the fascination with gelding an MBT on the basis of an outlier case (narrow streets) for a niche role.
If you wanted to optimise for urban combat you’d add high elevation weapons and better sensors before lopping the end of the barrel. possibly more crew and more weapons (in the manner of the BMP-T)
The BMP-T holds value in other scenarios much more than a stumpy MBT, as the autocannon, missiles and GMGs complement the tank firepower. A sawn-off MBT just does the same as a regular MBT, but worse.

If you want HE delivered precisely, we have that capability with guided weapons that we did not when such demolition guns were viable. As the weight of shell from the vastly more numerous and useful MBT increased and guided munitions, either ground or air launched, proliferated, the need for a dedicated HE thrower has evaporated.