Uk Surges Ahead With Challenger 2 Upgrade

[Mighty_Zuk]

Upgrade 148 to CR3. Build 500 more turrets, buy 500 hulls of Leopard or Abrams.

Embrace technological modernity, restore masculinity. Gender and skin color swaps are allowed but only as unlockable skins for XP, including discount on those lowering hitbox or improving camo stats.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Leopard 2 is an OLDER design than Challenger 2. So is Abrams. They are both fine vehicles, but is there any reason to countenance going back to torsion bar suspension, when we have moved away from it for 40 years with no apparent ill effects? None whatesoever.

Besides, we buy German, we are going to have to build the hulls ourselves anyway, because they dont have the production capacity. At that point we may as well build more Challenger Hulls, to simplify compatability and mating issues. Thats fairly clear I think.

The surefire way to turn this project into a mess, is allow the MOD to over complicate it, which is what buying in foreign hulls would be.  Making more hulls of precisely the same type isnt complicated. We were doing it only 24 years ago for heaven sake, its not exactly trying to remember how we build battleships.

I want to increase military industrial capacity in this country. Buying in stuff from abroad simply is not doing that.

 

Edited January 25 by Stuart Galbraith

[DB]

The actual design dates aren't really relevant, but the rather more subjective "technology level", for want of a better term.

Design decisions for Centurion, like electric turret operation almost certainly predate the M60, which used hydraulics. Does that make electrically driven turrets wrong?

The Challenger has at its heart three-part ammunition using bagged charges, and the internal design uses that to in theory at least, mitigate risks post penetration given the defensive, hull-down doctrine.

If the hypothetical new tank is to fit into a new doctrine, and new threats, then there's no reason to retain the old hull out of habit, especially given it's not in manufacture and hasn't been for a generation.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Which is perfectly true, but if we are going to build new hulls, then it arguably warrants a clean sheet design, instead of just building 40 year old designs of someone else. Maybe even making capacity for 3 crewman abreast in an armour capsule, at least to future proof it. And at that point, you are effectively designing a new tank thats going to take 10 years to get through the preproduction phase, if not more.

My own view, if we did a 'new' challenger hull, it might indeed be possible to fix some of the flaws. with forward mounted cameras, you could give the bow a more  accute angle, even increase the protection. You could even (and this is controversial idea im sure others will laugh at), even remove the drivers position hatch, or at least improve the protection in that area. WIth some of the ideas of exernal cameras the Israelis have bene playing with, there are increasingly few reasons to stick your head out the hatch anymore. Just my opinion for what its worth.

But as you well know, if we move away from a legacy design, we will complicate it, and doubtless increase the time for MOD to work through the bureaucracy to get it into service. Far easier to take something we know works and build lots more of it. Yes, incorporate light improvements of course, particularly in constructuion, but nothing that is going to slow the procurement down. We saw how multiple changes turned FRES into what would have been an easy procurement, into a 20 year odyssy in bureaucratic mismanagement.

If I was going to start again, Id buy Merkava hulls as a design, maybe even build Merk 4's under licence, particularly as we seem determined to ditch IFV's, and integrate something like C3's turret on it. But we decided this is the cheapest option, and so it is. There are few good arguments yet to move on, or MOD would already have done that over the 30 years its taken them to figure out what our next tank is going to be.

 

 

Edited January 25 by Stuart Galbraith

[methos]

6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Leopard 2 is an OLDER design than Challenger 2. So is Abrams. They are both fine vehicles, but is there any reason to countenance going back to torsion bar suspension, when we have moved away from it for 40 years with no apparent ill effects? None whatesoever.

Yet the CR2's hull design can be traced back to the Chieftain and suffers from design compromises (engine bay size, driver's hatch requiring armor to be "cut away") directly influenced by this heritage.

 

If the UK wanted, they could acquire a license for either M1 or Leopard 2 (which is exactly what Italy is doing right now) and let its local industry (WFEL, Pearson, etc.) contribute. Even integrating a hydrogas suspension wouldn't be impossible.

[Stuart Galbraith]

3 hours ago, methos said:

Yet the CR2's hull design can be traced back to the Chieftain and suffers from design compromises (engine bay size, driver's hatch requiring armor to be "cut away") directly influenced by this heritage.

 

If the UK wanted, they could acquire a license for either M1 or Leopard 2 (which is exactly what Italy is doing right now) and let its local industry (WFEL, Pearson, etc.) contribute. Even integrating a hydrogas suspension wouldn't be impossible.

No, it really can't. There elements that CAN be traced back to Shir 1, the first cv12 powered machine. But so what, M1A2 can trace elements back to XM1 from 1979. Leopard 2A7 can trace elements back to the leopard 2 prototype in 1978. They are no newer.

OK, here is an issue. We can't afford to build 150 new tanks. We rebuild them to save money. The idea we are going to suddenly start manufacture  of 150 new tanks from the ground up. Then there is something like 30 avres and avlbs that will have completely different hull and drivetrain. So you build those too. Where is the saving here? Where is the sense?

Can someone demonstrate to me challenger, any of them, being knocked out bt the drivers hatch? Yes, there are clear compromises in the design. Swap them for abrams and Leopard, they too have compromises. All afvs do. There is no perfect design we can pick off the shelf.

 

[Wiedzmin]

 

 

Edited January 25 by Wiedzmin

[Mighty_Zuk]

15 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Leopard 2 is an OLDER design than Challenger 2. So is Abrams. They are both fine vehicles, but is there any reason to countenance going back to torsion bar suspension, when we have moved away from it for 40 years with no apparent ill effects? None whatesoever.

Besides, we buy German, we are going to have to build the hulls ourselves anyway, because they dont have the production capacity. At that point we may as well build more Challenger Hulls, to simplify compatability and mating issues. Thats fairly clear I think.

The surefire way to turn this project into a mess, is allow the MOD to over complicate it, which is what buying in foreign hulls would be.  Making more hulls of precisely the same type isnt complicated. We were doing it only 24 years ago for heaven sake, its not exactly trying to remember how we build battleships.

I want to increase military industrial capacity in this country. Buying in stuff from abroad simply is not doing that.

 

No chance is the UK going to restart hull production, let alone for something that will start phasing out around early 2030's.

The 2 logical paths are to use an existing design that's available in large numbers and which is possible to sell off or will have greater utility in reserve, or to design a brand new hull. If UK goes for new production - it might as well be a modern design.

[Stuart Galbraith]

7 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

No chance is the UK going to restart hull production, let alone for something that will start phasing out around early 2030's.

The 2 logical paths are to use an existing design that's available in large numbers and which is possible to sell off or will have greater utility in reserve, or to design a brand new hull. If UK goes for new production - it might as well be a modern design.

Well, lets wait and see, ok? People are starting to be a bit scared now, and scared people do strange things.

[Interlinked]

CR1/2/3 hull front design is the Chieftain hull modified with a composite armour structure. It is the same as the T-64/72/80 being a basic T-44 type hull with the thickness increased by replacing the sloped steel plate with a sloped composite armour sandwich. Both of these solutions ended up with cutouts to fit the driver, because the shape of the front hull was fundamentally not adapted to thick armour like the "older" Leo 2 and Abrams hulls.

CR1/2/3 hull is also tapered, a legacy solution for moving the hull side plate to belly plate weld joint further from the track, for mine survivability reasons. This wasted internal space and constricted the turret basket diameter. It's not needed for a hydropneumatic suspension, nor does it offer any advantages over modern methods of anti-mine reinforcement.

Leopard 2 and Abrams front hulls were clean-sheet designs. The "age" of the hull is completely irrelevant.

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well, lets wait and see, ok? People are starting to be a bit scared now, and scared people do strange things.

You know I want what's best for the UK, but let's be real. 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Just now, Mighty_Zuk said:

You know I want what's best for the UK, but let's be real. 

In 1930, nobody was interested in defence in the UK. In 1939 they were just finishing an entirely new shadow  factory at Castle Bromwich to build Spitfires. It can happen again, and for much the same reasons. The world changed.

[Ssnake]

It's infinitely easier to build a Spitfire production line than, say, one for the F-35. Not that it's "easy" to build a Spitfire, but the overall complexity simply isn't comparable.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well as far as errecting 4 walls to build them in, its much the same. As far as training people up in the means of producing components, yes there is that.  Though increasingly subcomponents are bought abroad anyway. The entire fire control and optical equipment for this machine has to come from abroad. So I presume will the gun. We have access to you Germans to replace all the know how that we threw away, so as far as skilling people do do it, its not beyond our ability to do it.What is lacking is the will, not the means, and will, as we saw in the 1930's, will can change in a relatively short time when you start applying money to it.

I would argue that, technically, is no harder than to weld a Centurion hull together than it is a Challenger hull. And looking at the equipment available today for such things, machinery is going to take most of the difficulty out of it. Acqiring the plant equipment might be the lead time admittedly. But what the hell, South Korea can do it, so can we. If we again choose to do it, which again is the point. Its political will and the money, not the technical ability that is stopping us doing it.

 

[Colin]

The building for the new production is the easy part. The mobile cranes inside and certain speciality equipment might have 18-24 month lead time.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Well presumably the facility they are doing the upgrade work is already going to have them. Space presumably  will be a premium though.

[Cajer]

On 1/26/2024 at 1:31 PM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Well as far as errecting 4 walls to build them in, its much the same. As far as training people up in the means of producing components, yes there is that.  Though increasingly subcomponents are bought abroad anyway. The entire fire control and optical equipment for this machine has to come from abroad. So I presume will the gun. We have access to you Germans to replace all the know how that we threw away, so as far as skilling people do do it, its not beyond our ability to do it.What is lacking is the will, not the means, and will, as we saw in the 1930's, will can change in a relatively short time when you start applying money to it.

I would argue that, technically, is no harder than to weld a Centurion hull together than it is a Challenger hull. And looking at the equipment available today for such things, machinery is going to take most of the difficulty out of it. Acqiring the plant equipment might be the lead time admittedly. But what the hell, South Korea can do it, so can we. If we again choose to do it, which again is the point. Its political will and the money, not the technical ability that is stopping us doing it.

 

The final assembly/hull structure is the easy part these days.  Electronics and engines are the hard part with lead times running into the years due to production capability being scoped to be exactly what it needs to be to meet normal or peacetime demands.

There is simply no such thing as scaling up quickly for a war anymore.  You get the production rate you have planned for in the past.  Either way there won't really be a land war in Europe (post Ukraine) or really a major land war European powers would be involved in anymore with the now slow inevitable collapse of the Russian economy

[Mike1158]

To do anything worthwhile, change is essential.  rather than faff about with old tech into the futre, we should make the leap and do something heroic to coin an oft misused phrase.

 

To make the investment pay we need to produce something well beyond the competition and enbsure our troops have the best kit for a long while to come.

 

I know the arguments against but we have stagnated for too long, time to up our game.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Id argue we need to relearn what we were doing, before we do anything innovative. You only have to look at the mess we got into trying to combine the two with Ajax.

14 hours ago, Cajer said:

The final assembly/hull structure is the easy part these days.  Electronics and engines are the hard part with lead times running into the years due to production capability being scoped to be exactly what it needs to be to meet normal or peacetime demands.

There is simply no such thing as scaling up quickly for a war anymore.  You get the production rate you have planned for in the past.  Either way there won't really be a land war in Europe (post Ukraine) or really a major land war European powers would be involved in anymore with the now slow inevitable collapse of the Russian economy

Well, engines we probably still have the ability to build. We must do I think just to provide spares. Transmissions, I would guess there is still a vestigial capability at that end, assuming we havent ended buying any new ones in and are just making do with parts reclaimation.

As far as sights, electronics, radios, as far as im aware, most of that is going to be bought in from abroad. Of necssity, because the MOD didnt buy any armoured fighting vehicles for a couple of decades, and much to their surprise found allt he companies they had depended on had faded away in the interim.

Well we cant do anything about that. But it surely is beholden on us to try and get them to open at least some kind of production capacity here, not just for our own advantage, but to try and create some European wide production capacity. I dont mind buying in from Europe, as long as Europe is happy to open production capacity here so we can mutually lean on each other. Just depending on a couple of plants in Europe to make tanks or military optics, clearly is a bad idea for a future where war might well become more common. I quite agree actually, there is no scaling up for war anymore. We probably have to all do a better job at keeping production capacity alive and with decent orders to keep it that way. And if that means stockpiling more kit we dont immediately need, I have no problem with that. Looking at Ukraine, thats preciisely what we need to be doing.

[Cajer]

On 2/2/2024 at 8:56 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Id argue we need to relearn what we were doing, before we do anything innovative. You only have to look at the mess we got into trying to combine the two with Ajax.

Well, engines we probably still have the ability to build. We must do I think just to provide spares. Transmissions, I would guess there is still a vestigial capability at that end, assuming we havent ended buying any new ones in and are just making do with parts reclaimation.

As far as sights, electronics, radios, as far as im aware, most of that is going to be bought in from abroad. Of necssity, because the MOD didnt buy any armoured fighting vehicles for a couple of decades, and much to their surprise found allt he companies they had depended on had faded away in the interim.

Well we cant do anything about that. But it surely is beholden on us to try and get them to open at least some kind of production capacity here, not just for our own advantage, but to try and create some European wide production capacity. I dont mind buying in from Europe, as long as Europe is happy to open production capacity here so we can mutually lean on each other. Just depending on a couple of plants in Europe to make tanks or military optics, clearly is a bad idea for a future where war might well become more common. I quite agree actually, there is no scaling up for war anymore. We probably have to all do a better job at keeping production capacity alive and with decent orders to keep it that way. And if that means stockpiling more kit we dont immediately need, I have no problem with that. Looking at Ukraine, thats preciisely what we need to be doing.

I would argue that the UK does not really need much if any MBT's.  Actions in Africa/Middle East will just be policing actions from now on after the previous few mis-adventures in the Middle East.  It's unlikely that MBT's will be landed anywhere for conflict with China.  If they do, they'll be few in number and the US/Korea/Japan is better positioned to do that anyways with forces in theatre already.

Russia is the only opponent in Europe and they are doing a good job of crippling themselves. Some European NATO members are in a land forces buying frenzy, so additional British investment is not needed.

Instead of investing large amount of money into a MBT fleet + large amounts of spares which provides limited deterrence and even more limited utility, the UK should as is investing more into naval/air forces go guard against a much more likely conflict with China which European NATO members are neglecting.

[Sardaukar]

7 hours ago, Cajer said:

I would argue that the UK does not really need much if any MBT's.  Actions in Africa/Middle East will just be policing actions from now on after the previous few mis-adventures in the Middle East.  It's unlikely that MBT's will be landed anywhere for conflict with China.  If they do, they'll be few in number and the US/Korea/Japan is better positioned to do that anyways with forces in theatre already.

Russia is the only opponent in Europe and they are doing a good job of crippling themselves. Some European NATO members are in a land forces buying frenzy, so additional British investment is not needed.

Instead of investing large amount of money into a MBT fleet + large amounts of spares which provides limited deterrence and even more limited utility, the UK should as is investing more into naval/air forces go guard against a much more likely conflict with China which European NATO members are neglecting.

You are conveniently forgetting looming conflict with Russia. 

MBTs will definitely be useful in that. 

[Cajer]

2 hours ago, Sardaukar said:

You are conveniently forgetting looming conflict with Russia. 

MBTs will definitely be useful in that. 

How is there going to be a looming conflict with Russia?  Russia is in no position to attack NATO after the irreplaceable losses they've suffered in Ukraine not to mention the state of their economy.  Additionally the west has a ton of information/Russian systems to better counter them now.

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

10 hours ago, Cajer said:

I would argue that the UK does not really need much if any MBT's.  Actions in Africa/Middle East will just be policing actions from now on after the previous few mis-adventures in the Middle East.  It's unlikely that MBT's will be landed anywhere for conflict with China.  If they do, they'll be few in number and the US/Korea/Japan is better positioned to do that anyways with forces in theatre already.

Russia is the only opponent in Europe and they are doing a good job of crippling themselves. Some European NATO members are in a land forces buying frenzy, so additional British investment is not needed.

Instead of investing large amount of money into a MBT fleet + large amounts of spares which provides limited deterrence and even more limited utility, the UK should as is investing more into naval/air forces go guard against a much more likely conflict with China which European NATO members are neglecting.

Yes, but NATO very much needs the UK to have tanks. And Ill explain why.

There are only 3 nuclear powers in NATO, Britain, France, America. And whilst one might currently have doubts about America, there assuredly are fewer about Britain and France, for the simple reason we live in Europe. We have skin in the game. If we fail here, we cant go anywhere.

For this reason we need to be on Europes frontier. We need to be guarding that against potential Russian incursion. And it helps very much indeed, if the force that is on that border, does indeed still have the backing of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Its the old rock paper scissors game. We could defeat Russia in detail if we have a suitably equipped army. But without nuclear weapons its irrelevant. Conversely we could defeat Russia with nuclear weapons (at an imense cost to ourselves). But if we have a weak Army that cannot hold Russia's conventional options, again, there isnt much point. Ergo, we really need both.

Between us and the French, we have a capablity none of the other NATO nations, other than America, can bring. And as there is currently some doubts about where America will be politically in a year, this has some growing significance.

Russia is the only land opponent in Europe, its true. But the Eastern Europeans claim it would only take Russia 2 years to rebuild its army with all the Soviet era equipment it has in reserve. Personally, I think that is overly pessamistic. I think its 5 years. Its also worth remembering, whilst Russias are absolutely lousy at fighting wars at the beginning, they do learn. Are we really  going to guarantee Western security on the back of an assumption, because I can tell you, we have been doing that since 2000, and so far its working really, really badly.

I come to the point of view, our corner of the world is more important to us. At 2 percent of GDP, we are not going to go gallivanting around the world, and guarantee the borders of Europe. Its time to figure out whats important, and double down on it. Rebuilding the fleet and confronting china was a nice fantasy, and I enjoyed it. Its time to grow up again.

[Cajer]

On 2/4/2024 at 8:53 AM, Stuart Galbraith said:

Yes, but NATO very much needs the UK to have tanks. And Ill explain why.

There are only 3 nuclear powers in NATO, Britain, France, America. And whilst one might currently have doubts about America, there assuredly are fewer about Britain and France, for the simple reason we live in Europe. We have skin in the game. If we fail here, we cant go anywhere.

For this reason we need to be on Europes frontier. We need to be guarding that against potential Russian incursion. And it helps very much indeed, if the force that is on that border, does indeed still have the backing of nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Its the old rock paper scissors game. We could defeat Russia in detail if we have a suitably equipped army. But without nuclear weapons its irrelevant. Conversely we could defeat Russia with nuclear weapons (at an imense cost to ourselves). But if we have a weak Army that cannot hold Russia's conventional options, again, there isnt much point. Ergo, we really need both.

Between us and the French, we have a capablity none of the other NATO nations, other than America, can bring. And as there is currently some doubts about where America will be politically in a year, this has some growing significance.

Russia is the only land opponent in Europe, its true. But the Eastern Europeans claim it would only take Russia 2 years to rebuild its army with all the Soviet era equipment it has in reserve. Personally, I think that is overly pessamistic. I think its 5 years. Its also worth remembering, whilst Russias are absolutely lousy at fighting wars at the beginning, they do learn. Are we really  going to guarantee Western security on the back of an assumption, because I can tell you, we have been doing that since 2000, and so far its working really, really badly.

I come to the point of view, our corner of the world is more important to us. At 2 percent of GDP, we are not going to go gallivanting around the world, and guarantee the borders of Europe. Its time to figure out whats important, and double down on it. Rebuilding the fleet and confronting china was a nice fantasy, and I enjoyed it. Its time to grow up again.

I don’t think talking to you anyone will be productive. You are ignoring all the demographic, economic, and industrial realities to justify a Uber Russia in order to justify building nearly useless capabilities for your version of prestige vanity projects.
 

It’s not just isolated to this thread either, you were advocating for the US to invest in ships building in the Uk instead of restore American ship building capabilities. Despite the fact that the Uk can cant build enough ships themselves

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 hour ago, Cajer said:

I don’t think talking to you anyone will be productive. You are ignoring all the demographic, economic, and industrial realities to justify a Uber Russia in order to justify building nearly useless capabilities for your version of prestige vanity projects.
 

It’s not just isolated to this thread either, you were advocating for the US to invest in ships building in the Uk instead of restore American ship building capabilities. Despite the fact that the Uk can cant build enough ships themselves

Well this also this serves to be on another thread. Note, I was not saying the US HAD to buy ships from the UK, though as we are significantly expanding shipbuilding capacity here, it will shortly be able to. I was saying, it could. If nothing else there is capacity elsewhere to get ships, if it badly wants them. Unfortunately these arguments get mired in politics, rather than exploiting existing capacity, which was my basic point.

Is it a prestige project or Europe to be able to produce the means to defend itself, without having to fall back on buying elsewhere for it? I dont think so. There are plenty of shipyards in the world. There are currently 3 factories where western nations can get their MBT's, and they are already maxed out.

Im sorry, I dont see creating further capcity in an area where nobody has invested for years is a vanity project, because it isnt. As ukraine has proven, its a necessity.

Edited February 7 by Stuart Galbraith