The future of Challenger or its replacement

MOD edit - this thread was created to capture some good (and not so good) posts about CR2 and the future of armour in the Army. It was getting lost in the F35 thread and is moved here to allow debate and ideas to flow.

Guns





The army has a large number of extremely formidable attack helicopters that can defeat any known tank with ease, but they are not sexy like 70 tonnes of steel galloomphing en mass across the plains, nor can the average Tarquil ever aspire to gadding about in one.

Perhaps the Army should look beyond the MBT like the RAF looked beyond the Heavy Bomber and the Navy beyond armoured big ships.


They (Apache) are also Extremely expensive to run, vulnerable to other aircraft , maintenance intensive and affected by weather.
There is still a need for armour both for protection and defeating enemy armour.

Now if you are arguing that whatever replaces Challenger needs to be smaller and lighter, I have no argument with that. However in my opinion the problem is again political if the next MBT is smaller and lighter it will inevitably be less protected. Whilst the army may accept this compromise, sooner or later the cries of "If they had a 70 ton tank they would still be alive" will drown out all logic and sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
They (Apache) are also Extremely expensive to run, vulnerable to other aircraft , maintenance intensive and affected by weather.
There is still a need for armour both for protection and defeating enemy armour.

Now if you are arguing that whatever replaces Challenger needs to be smaller and lighter, I have no argument with that. However in my opinion the problem is again political if the next MBT is smaller and lighter it will inevitably be less protected. Whilst the army may accept this compromise, sooner or later the cries of "If they had a 70 ton tank they would still be alive" will drown out all logic and sense.

Leopard 3 has been greenlit: http://www.bundeswehr-journal.de/2014/politiker-beantragen-entwicklungsprogramm-leopard-3/ But there is talk of a Franco-German collaboration for TNG Heavy Armour, is it worth our jumping in with them, or forging a separate path with the Scandinavians?
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
A very good plan. Ruined by a loathsome one eyed f**knuts who clearly hated the Armed Forces and loving f**king them *********** with sudden budget cuts whilst his "friend" next door f**ked us over even more. Robertson asked for a mere £1Bn uplift in MoD budget to properly fund SDR and Bliar demonstrated his utter cowardice by refusing to do what every other PM in British History has done when agreeing to something, telling the Chancellor how much money to hand over. Can you image Thatcher or Major letting the Chancellor decide by himself how much money is to be spent on a department once a Cabinet decision had been made ?

Dysfunctional is polite word to describe New Labour.

Despite being nearly 20 years, it still is a very good plan.

But where will we find our new Haldane?
 
The army has a large number of extremely formidable attack helicopters that can defeat any known tank with ease, but they are not sexy like 70 tonnes of steel galloomphing en mass across the plains, nor can the average Tarquil ever aspire to gadding about in one.

Can Apache hold ground, provide 24/7/365 fire support, operate no matter what the weather conditions, operate continuously in extreme austere conditions, be parked on a junction to show the locals who the boss is, spearhead a breakthrough or provide the covering force to a retreat or be moved anywhere on the battlefield and be ready to start operations again as soon as it drives off the train/transporter?
 

S0I

LE
They (Apache) are also Extremely expensive to run, vulnerable to other aircraft , maintenance intensive and affected by weather.
There is still a need for armour both for protection and defeating enemy armour.

Now if you are arguing that whatever replaces Challenger needs to be smaller and lighter, I have no argument with that. However in my opinion the problem is again political if the next MBT is smaller and lighter it will inevitably be less protected. Whilst the army may accept this compromise, sooner or later the cries of "If they had a 70 ton tank they would still be alive" will drown out all logic and sense.


Smaller and lighter, the 70 tonne gun MBT is a non deployable dinosaur that without total air superiority can be turned into 70 tonnes of high grade steel scrap by ATGM equipped attack helos.
 

S0I

LE
Can Apache hold ground, provide 24/7/365 fire support, operate no matter what the weather conditions, operate continuously in extreme austere conditions, be parked on a junction to show the locals who the boss is, spearhead a breakthrough or provide the covering force to a retreat or be moved anywhere on the battlefield and be ready to start operations again as soon as it drives off the train/transporter?

So it's a 70 tonne mobile pillbox for willy waving at the fuzzie wuzzies.
Good luck using those arguments with the Minister as to why the Army needs hundreds of new Panzers to park in an air conditioned storage depot ad infinitum.
 
So it's a 70 tonne mobile pillbox for willy waving at the fuzzie wuzzies.
Good luck using those arguments with the Minister as to why the Army needs hundreds of new Panzers to park in an air conditioned storage depot ad infinitum.

Good luck explaining to him how all our Apache were shot down hovering over a road junction providing overwatch for the infantry because some d*ckhead thought we could do without MBTs to do it.

It's always interesting to see just how limited your knowledge of the military is though. You clearly don't really understand most of what you post about, do you?

Also, I assume the answer to the questions I asked was 'no'?
 
T

Tinman74

Guest
So it's a 70 tonne mobile pillbox for willy waving at the fuzzie wuzzies.
Good luck using those arguments with the Minister as to why the Army needs hundreds of new Panzers to park in an air conditioned storage depot ad infinitum.

Panzer take the ground, infantry hold it, substitute panzer for highly mobile armoured personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles, supported by air. Wonder why the AAC are looking at the new E type.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
Panzer take the ground, infantry hold it, substitute panzer for highly mobile armoured personnel carriers or infantry fighting vehicles, supported by air. Wonder why the AAC are looking at the new E type.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)

The soviet army (oh yes, I am going back to the cold war) always considered a helicopter to be a very lightly armoured tank. It facilitated the ground troops to occupy ground. Boots on the ground is the ultimate possession of territory.
 
MBT's will be useful just not in herds as envisaged for the Cold-War / WW3 scenario. How useful were MBT's in Afghanistan, NI, Bosnia etc?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Good luck explaining to him how all our Apache were shot down hovering over a road junction providing overwatch for the infantry because some d*ckhead thought we could do without MBTs to do it.

MBTs are, in the right circumstances, exceptionally useful, flexible assets. Good thing we've got a fleet of up-to-date main battle tanks with state-of-the-art armament and plenty of choice in ammunition, then, isn't it?

...oh, it seems the Army's ignored CR2 for long enough that it's going obsolescent and can't be updated, preferring to spend billions chasing FRES/MODIFIER vapourware, and is now coming back having blown all the money for no result in order to ask for even more in order to buy off-the-shelf from overseas, because they allowed the domestic producer to die.

That's not going to play well with the politicians, even before you look at the utilisation of CR2 in the last decade and wonder why, pretty much uniquely among our allies, the British Army considers it impossible to park useful amounts of heavy armour in the Reserve to reconstitute in the near-peer threat that we'll get "five years, honest, we promise" of warning time.
 
MBTs are, in the right circumstances, exceptionally useful, flexible assets. Good thing we've got a fleet of up-to-date main battle tanks with state-of-the-art armament and plenty of choice in ammunition, then, isn't it?

Where on earth did you read me saying that the management of the Chally2 fleet has been done well?
 
is anyone else enjoying watching S0I and Lindermyer rattle on about a topic they are plainly both experts in?
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
Where on earth did you read me saying that the management of the Chally2 fleet has been done well?

Didn't mean to imply you had, but it's part of the question that'll be asked when the competitors for the (seriously limited) pool of funding are assessed.

There's a definite perception that heavy armour's been given a stiff ignoring for a decade, and therefore if the Army is apparently not too worried about it, why should it be paid for at the expense of other capabilities that have been nurtured and cared for more carefully?
 
Im simply expressing an opinion, based on a variety of sources as regards the relevance of armour. I happen to think its still relevant - one need not be a tankie to understand certain ideas.

Obviously if I was discussing tactical deployments, or ideal force ratios then you'd have me bang to rights for talking out my arrse.

As regards Apache - I haven't worked with it I have however worked on a fair number of rotary winged types, all are maintenance intensive, far more so than fixed winged aircraft (which ive worked on).

So whilst I would never claim to be an expert, I reckon im probably not too uninformed as regards my opinion that AH cannot replace armour if only because of availability considerations.

As for political considerations influencing the protection over all else debate, well you only have to read Hansard to reach that conclusion.

I suspect that having felt the need to justify my posts, you can smile at the little nibble.
 
Didn't mean to imply you had, but it's part of the question that'll be asked when the competitors for the (seriously limited) pool of funding are assessed.

There's a definite perception that heavy armour's been given a stiff ignoring for a decade, and therefore if the Army is apparently not too worried about it, why should it be paid for at the expense of other capabilities that have been nurtured and cared for more carefully?
Unfortunately, you are dead right.

The problem is, the senior echelons have blown so much smoke up the arrse of SCOUT ("transformational" and "broad utility across the spectrum of conflict" being two such gems), that they are now incapable of going back with their begging bowls to ask for more.

I see so much talk of 'playing the strategic game' and 'presentational issues' these days, which basically boils down to people who should know better either being too monumentally thick, or so trapped in their own little version of The West Wing that they are incapable of being honest with themselves or others. It makes my piss boil when senior officers pontificate about Values and Standards, yet preside over a decision-making process that lacks both Courage and Integrity.
 

P2000

LE
Your SDSR15 starter for 10. Whose ground are we taking or holding?

In your own time, go on.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Leopard 3 has been greenlit: http://www.bundeswehr-journal.de/2014/politiker-beantragen-entwicklungsprogramm-leopard-3/ But there is talk of a Franco-German collaboration for TNG Heavy Armour, is it worth our jumping in with them, or forging a separate path with the Scandinavians?

Who in the Scandinavians, though? BAE owns the CV90 intellectual property now and the Swedes and Norwegians run Leopard 2s.

However in my opinion the problem is again political if the next MBT is smaller and lighter it will inevitably be less protected. Whilst the army may accept this compromise, sooner or later the cries of "If they had a 70 ton tank they would still be alive" will drown out all logic and sense.

Smaller and lighter, the 70 tonne gun MBT is a non deployable dinosaur that without total air superiority can be turned into 70 tonnes of high grade steel scrap by ATGM equipped attack helos.

So it's a 70 tonne mobile pillbox for willy waving at the fuzzie wuzzies.

Never forget the progress in materials science and, by extension, protection. The Japanese Type 10 weighs in at 44-48 tonnes (depending on protection package) and isn't dimensionally too dissimilar to C2.

Is that a massive trade-off in weight over protection? Not according to the sale bumph. Okay, it may not be built of the Unobtainium/Kryptonite mix promised in FRES PowerPoint slides, but it's two decades on from when C2 was first put together.
 
Your SDSR15 starter for 10. Whose ground are we taking or holding?

In your own time, go on.
Whilst we don't plan for any specific war, the scenarios endorsed by the Studies Assumptions Group (SAG) are generally taken to be representative if the kind of threats and military tasks the UK plc should be capable of meeting.

Naturally, these are classified.
 

Latest Threads

Top