Uk Surges Ahead With Challenger 2 Upgrade

[Stuart Galbraith]

Few more videos ive just notice on youtube.

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

This is Guy Martin, some of you will remember him as a Motorcycle racer (a pretty damn good one) who took part in the TT for many years. He did a programme about 2 years ago on building a replica of a WW1 tank, and this is the segment where he was giving a run in a Challenger 2 on Salisbury Plain.

[DB]

Why not bin the whole thing and get 200 K2 piggy-backed off the Polish order?

[JW Collins]

Why not bin the whole thing and get 200 K2 piggy-backed off the Polish order?

Even with the lower labor costs in Poland for that sort of money you probably could get all of the upgrades that are realistic for the Challenger 2 including a 120mm L55 smoothbore cannon.

[Stuart Galbraith]

And the armour package is better.

[Chris Werb]

Why not bin the whole thing and get 200 K2 piggy-backed off the Polish order?

 

Exactly.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Then you end up with a tank completely different from the AVLB and the ARRVs. So then you have to buy those too. Then you have to setup a new training package because you have an entirely new tank. And you suddenly find when you forked out for all that, you can only afford 100 tanks, so the RAC shrinks, again.

 

It smacks of a cheap solution so beloved of chancellors, that turn out not to be. So undoubtedly it's what we will do.

[Chris Werb]

Then you end up with a tank completely different from the AVLB and the ARRVs. So then you have to buy those too. Then you have to setup a new training package because you have an entirely new tank. And you suddenly find when you forked out for all that, you can only afford 100 tanks, so the RAC shrinks, again.

 

It smacks of a cheap solution so beloved of chancellors, that turn out not to be. So undoubtedly it's what we will do.

 

So we're continually stuck with the same old thing because the next generation of tank or AVLB/ARRV has to be on the same platform as its opposite number?

[Mighty_Zuk]

Then you end up with a tank completely different from the AVLB and the ARRVs. So then you have to buy those too. Then you have to setup a new training package because you have an entirely new tank. And you suddenly find when you forked out for all that, you can only afford 100 tanks, so the RAC shrinks, again.

 

It smacks of a cheap solution so beloved of chancellors, that turn out not to be. So undoubtedly it's what we will do.

You do know that the Challenger 2's LEP that will change its gun, turret, engine, and what not, will substantially reduce the commonality with the CRARRV and AVLB, right? Then you spend a lot of money upgrading them as well.

But there's an alternative. Regardless of whether you upgrade the CR2 or buy another tank, the old CR2's parts can be used to sustain the ARRV and AVLB for quite a while.

[Panzermann]

 

Then you end up with a tank completely different from the AVLB and the ARRVs. So then you have to buy those too. Then you have to setup a new training package because you have an entirely new tank. And you suddenly find when you forked out for all that, you can only afford 100 tanks, so the RAC shrinks, again.

 

It smacks of a cheap solution so beloved of chancellors, that turn out not to be. So undoubtedly it's what we will do.

You do know that the Challenger 2's LEP that will change its gun, turret, engine, and what not, will substantially reduce the commonality with the CRARRV and AVLB, right? Then you spend a lot of money upgrading them as well.

But there's an alternative. Regardless of whether you upgrade the CR2 or buy another tank, the old CR2's parts can be used to sustain the ARRV and AVLB for quite a while.

 

 

A sensible planning would do that, but history has shown, that Whitehall happily throws away perfectly good equipment in a moment's notice instead of storing it for later. See e.g. the scrapping of part of the Challenger 2 fleet.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yes, I'm still savage about that. We are going to do it again with the Apache fleet.

 

From what I've seen, the new c2 upgrades will make it in no way inferior to the rest of Europe's tank park. The only threat it needs worry about is the traditional one. Politicians.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Yeah, the new CR2, if all upgrade programs are implemented, is a solid one. But it's not quite significant with such a small fleet, and comparing them to European tanks is not a good metric, because most of Europe are not really doing a good job upgrading their tanks either.

 

Currently the only countries operating top notch tanks (even if in limited quantities) are the US, Russia, Israel, France, South Korea, Japan, China, and just maybe Germany. Everyone else are really neglecting their tank fleets.

[GJK]

 

 

 

 

Then you end up with a tank completely different from the AVLB and the ARRVs. So then you have to buy those too. Then you have to setup a new training package because you have an entirely new tank. And you suddenly find when you forked out for all that, you can only afford 100 tanks, so the RAC shrinks, again.

 

It smacks of a cheap solution so beloved of chancellors, that turn out not to be. So undoubtedly it's what we will do.

You do know that the Challenger 2's LEP that will change its gun, turret, engine, and what not, will substantially reduce the commonality with the CRARRV and AVLB, right? Then you spend a lot of money upgrading them as well.

But there's an alternative. Regardless of whether you upgrade the CR2 or buy another tank, the old CR2's parts can be used to sustain the ARRV and AVLB for quite a while.

A sensible planning would do that, but history has shown, that Whitehall happily throws away perfectly good equipment in a moment's notice instead of storing it for later. See e.g. the scrapping of part of the Challenger 2 fleet.

Sounds like the late 80s, with Challenger and Chieftain tanks, Chieftain ARRV, Chieftain AVLB and Centurion AVRE. I appreciate each type was at a different stage of its development, but we have a depressingly consist habit of procuring military equipment peacemeal. More expensive in the long run, harder to support, more complex training requirements. Challenger 1 regiments were supported by Chieftain ARRVs for some years, requiring units to hold both Challenger and Chieftain spares and tools. We won't learn.

 

Greg.

Edited February 14, 2020 by GJK

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, the new CR2, if all upgrade programs are implemented, is a solid one. But it's not quite significant with such a small fleet, and comparing them to European tanks is not a good metric, because most of Europe are not really doing a good job upgrading their tanks either.

 

Currently the only countries operating top notch tanks (even if in limited quantities) are the US, Russia, Israel, France, South Korea, Japan, China, and just maybe Germany. Everyone else are really neglecting their tank fleets.

Fair. Its disturbing how little interest there is in fitting APS to most European tanks. Well at least we have a tech demonstrator that fits it, the only question is when (if) the MOD will fund it.

[JW Collins]

Considering the budgetary reality I'm sure switching out the Challengers 2's engine is out of the picture but has there ever been consideration of replacing the 1,200hp engine with a 1,500hp model?

 

Zuk you listed the US as one of the countries as operating one of the top notch tanks but much as I admire qualities of the design it seems to me that many components of the M1 Abrams are getting long in the tooth. In particular the L/44 120mm gun probably won't be enough going forward. Among other things I think a whole new turret would be ideal. A layout that would incorporate all of the sensors, active protection system components, and independent weaponry for the commander in a more streamlined package. The M1A2 SEP v3 ought to be an interim step pending an overhauled M1A3.

 

I don't know what Germany and France may come up with for their future MBT requirements but I can't say I'm very optimistic about the future of Western MBT development, at least until reality gives us a rude slap in the face.

[Mighty_Zuk]

Zuk you listed the US as one of the countries as operating one of the top notch tanks but much as I admire qualities of the design it seems to me that many components of the M1 Abrams are getting long in the tooth. In particular the L/44 120mm gun probably won't be enough going forward. Among other things I think a whole new turret would be ideal. A layout that would incorporate all of the sensors, active protection system components, and independent weaponry for the commander in a more streamlined package. The M1A2 SEP v3 ought to be an interim step pending an overhauled M1A3.

 

I don't know what Germany and France may come up with for their future MBT requirements but I can't say I'm very optimistic about the future of Western MBT development, at least until reality gives us a rude slap in the face.

The L/44 is currently just as viable as the L/55, because many environments an MBT is expected to fight in, are limiting factors in the gun's design, particularly its length.

One way to go is to make a study and see what the maximum length can be, and what diameter is best for that, and focus on increasing chamber volume and maximum pressure. But there are new factors that must be taken into account in such a study:

1)The next generation of tanks has an innate capability of substantially increasing crew-relevant armor protection (i.e protection of the crew rather than the tank's systems).

2)Anti-KE APS already in service may shift all ground assets into the saturation mindset already adopted by navies and air forces elsewhere. Except this time the targets are not soft targets.

3)Doctrinal changes can affect the reference environments the tank's design team will take into account. For example, doctrine dictates that MBTs will no longer take part in urban combat, and IFVs and other assets (UGVs?) will be fully equipped for the task.

 

Unless the gun is being changed, I don't think designing a new turret right now is desired. It is a very expensive path, and such an ECP that will necessarily include a different powertrain as well (higher energy demands), may prove to be even more expensive than making brand new tanks (M1A3). Even less ambitious projects, like the conversion of Merkava 2 tanks to Namer HAPCs, back in 2006, was proven to be more expensive than building all-new ones.

 

You are not optimistic, but I am. Germany, France, Israel, and the US share a similar vision for the next generation, and a lot of work has already been done to show that it is possible. Not surprising as all these countries are basically sharing experiences and strategies with each other. The technology is at a stage where it has to mature a bit more, but some of it is already being marketed as ready, and some is already being implemented on operational vehicles.

The next generation of vehicles will not be backwards compatible with current gen. That is, you cannot upgrade existing vehicles to that standard, because it requires a lot of structural changes.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The commanding officer of the Royal Tank Regiment gives an interview in this podcast. He offers some interesting views on training, the future for challenger 2 and the streetfighter concept. Really interesting I thought.

https://anchor.fm/world-of-tanks/episodes/Tank-Nuts-Episode-Three-Lieutenant-Colonel-Jim-Howard-Commanding-Officer-Royal-Tank-Regiment-ecd0ok

[Adam Peter]

Becoming independent again boosted the military projects, like this upgrade?

[Stuart Galbraith]

We were always independent.

[Stuart Galbraith]

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-ntm-rescue-the-challenger-1-prototype?utm_source=customer&utm_medium=copy_link-tip&utm_campaign=p_cp+share-sheet

[Stuart Galbraith]

Interview with Britain's first female tank commander.

[Stuart Galbraith]

[Dark_Falcon]

 

Gun Launched ATGM for Challenger 2 LEP?

A House of Commons Defence Committee hearing on 7 July revealed that the British Army is looking into a gun launched anti-tank guided missile (ATGM) as part of the Challenger 2 Life Extension Program (LEP), in addition to the program having a “need” for a smoothbore gun.

General Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the Defense Staff, said during the hearing in response to a question from Member of Parliament Mark Francois on the intended date for initial operational capability for Challenger 2 LEP:

 

"I think the requirement is now pretty clear, and that is one of the reasons why Challenger 2 is taking a long time. It is because there was this realisation that the programme was not ambitious enough. It needed a smoothbore gun. It needed the ability to put a missile down that barrel to overmatch Armata, as you rightly describe. It needed its protection levels to be significantly enhanced. So the requirement has evolved. I think the Army now has a very clear idea of what it needs. The trick now is to find the resources to get behind what it needs.”

 

I don't know if this will ultimately be funded. I'd guess not.

[Stuart Galbraith]

We had something like a 14 Billion pound hole in the Defence budget before Covid 19. At the risk of being a cynic which im trying to get away from, erm, im cynical. Lets just leave it at that.

 

The urban warfare technical demonstrator Streetfighter 2 has a turret mounted Brimstone launcher mockup. Which is probably a bit cheaper, but that doesnt mean its going to happen either. It does illustrate they have been looking at this idea for some time.

[DB]

The various military news aggregators are pushing stories about CLEP. They clearly want a new turret ska the full-day Rheinmetall scheme with the L55 smoothbore gun.

 

I assume that opens up all sorts of options, including Israeli 120 Lahat?