Commentators have been predicting the end of the tank for decades yet the fact remains they are still relevant to a wide range of conflicts, whether that be the traditional heavy metal armoured clashes or used in a coercive capacity in counter insurgency or peace support missions.
The Challenger 2 is without a doubt one of the best main battle tanks in anywhere in the world, highly mobile and superbly well protected it gives UK armed forces a formidable edge.
A Challenger 2
Improved incrementally over a number of years there are still a number of improvements that it needs to remain in the premier league. In our previous post on structures I suggested that Challengers be restricted to 2 armoured brigades but that these brigades revert to the more traditional square structure with 2 armoured Regiments and 2 Armoured Infantry Battalions. An armoured Regiment consists of 4 Armoured Squadrons each equipped with 14 Challenger 2 and supporting elements such as medic and repair/recovery. Each squadron has 4 troops of 3 Challengers plus 2 in the HQ.
The existing Challenger 2 should be improved to 2E level with new engine/transmission, fire control systems, sensors and remote weapon stations. In addition, the 120mm rifled canon should be replaced with the Rheinmetall 120mm L55 canon. This is not for any inherent technical reason (those arguing the relative merits of rifled versus smoothbore can go on forever) but basic industrial and cost realities. The UK is the only nation to use a rifled main gun so any ammunition is both costly to develop and manufacture. Barrel life is also longer with a smoothbore and we can tap into other nations supply streams.
Fitting the smoothbore L55 has already been demonstrated in static firing tests and apart but to accept 1 part ammunition would be a complex and expensive task, so expensive it might actually be worth a new ammunition design and manufacture phase.
If possible, the switchover will enable access to a much greater choice of ammunition natures and commonality with other NATO nations. Ammunition available for this weapon, off the shelf, includes the very high performance Rheinmetall DM63 kinetic penetrator and the DM33 PELE round. General Dynamics manufacture a wide range of 120mm smoothbore ammunition including the ‘interesting’ M1028 cannister round and IMI make the Stun Cartridge (CS) that is essentially a huge thunderflash, the APAM multi purpose round and the tank launched LAHAT guided munition for engagements beyond 6,000m.
Although the Russians have recently cancelled the BMPT Tank Support Fighting Vehicle it is an interesting concept developed directly from experience in fighting in built up areas with main battle tanks. The accepted wisdom is not to take a tank into built up areas unless one has lots and lots of infantry support, tanks can be vulnerable at close range from all manner of active and passive defences.
BMPT
With the proposal to go square there is a lot of Challenger 2’s in each Armoured Brigade, a UK version of the Russian BMPT would provide a valuable improvement in capability especially in the close confines of urban or semi-urban terrain. In typical open tank country it could be argued that such a vehicle would have little merit but as the world becomes increasingly urbanised and high performance anti tank weapons proliferate, the danger levels for armoured vehicles is increasing.
The proposed Challenger fire support vehicle would be a conversion of existing hulls and they could be deployed in each troop (2x Challenger 2 MBT and 1x Challenger 2 FSV) or concentrated in a dedicated troop, the actual deployment options would be determined from doctrinal development and exercising. They might even be deployed as a dedicated squadron.
Whilst the Russian BMPT favours multiple cannons, grenade and missile launchers with a 5 man crew the Challenger version would be armed with a remote turret. A 3 man crew would be housed in the hull to maximise protection and minimise weight, this weight reduction would improve the power to weight ratio and therefore mobility. The remote turret would house an extendable mast mounted sight and be armed with a high elevation mount 40mm CTA canon, 40mm GMG and 7.62mm machine gun.
In one of our previous proposals we suggested that the CRV-7 Precision Guided Rocket would have utility as a low cost guided weapon against fixed and slow moving targets, if the system comes into service it would be a useful addition, either that or a 4 round Javelin launcher.
The CRV-7 is in service with the RAF and Army Air Corps in a number of unguided variants, incredibly effective with a much higher energy and accuracy than other similar rockets Kongsberg and Magellan have been quietly working on the precision seeker head that is available in semi active laser, GPS and even anti radiation although only the first two have been successfully demonstrated. Kongsberg are also marketing the CRV-7PG in a naval mount and it was also due to be fitted to the Canadian Multi Mission Effects Vehicle.
A bulldozer blade should also be fitted.
The key mission for the Challenger FSV would be to protect Warrior and Challenger from ATGW/RPG teams, suppression and destruction of small vehicles and support weapons. At greater open terrain ranges then the Challenger, Warrior, FRES and supporting indirect fires should be able to cope but in close confines reaction time and agility count whilst still being as mobile and survivable as Challenger because inevitably, they will get hit. For this reason the well protected Challenger teamed up with an extremely fast slewing/elevating medium calibre weapon like an automatic canon is ideal. the 40mm CTA is the logical choice and can have two ammunition natures available at the flick of a switch, some of these advanced rounds will have delayed fusing for through obstacle and over defilade attack.
The Warrior has proven to be reliable, tough and capable but the existing turret and 30mm RARDEN canon can be improved.
Warrior Armoured Vehicle
The various studies to improve the Warrior and field the 40mm CTA canon in a new turret have recently been slipped by 12 months due to budget issues but the programme should not be delayed indefinitely and confirmed as soon as possible.
Our previous structure proposal envisages the re rolling of some existing Warrior infantry units to the mechanised role which means a number of Warriors would be made available for conversion to the various secondary roles currently fulfilled by the FV43x series. The FV43x series, especially the excellent Bulldog conversions, should be retained as war stock and used when the need dictates.
UPDATE:
Have added some extra information in the post to reflect comments.
“The accepted wisdom is not to take a tank into built up areas unless one has lots and lots of infantry support…”
So true. However, tanks are also there to protect the infantry by taking the brunt of enemy fire, and finding the proper assault/protection balance has – and will remain – very tricky.
Not sure I agree with you on the 120mm gun issue. Losing the rilfed gun would take away HESH which is a useful round (look at the PELE pdf and see the picture captioned ‘three rounds create a hole big enough for infantry’ – bet a single 120mm HESH round would do the same) but, that said, the economics of the argument are hard to ignore.
If your going to mod some Challengers 2′s fit the BAe AMS (Advanced Mortar System) 120mm smooth bore breach loading mortar in the existing turret. Replace the co-ax with a long barreled version of Singapore Tech 40mm GMG and 1 x RWS with 12.7mm and 1 x mini-RWS with 1 x 7.62mm. 120mm mortar is something I harp on about – can be used as a direct fire weapon, there are laser guided, IR guided and ‘cargo’ sub-munition rounds available. You can even fire Israeli LAHAT laser guided anti-armour missiles through it. Incredibly versatile weapon system.
Warrior in my opinion should have the NEXTER remote turret, and it should have the fitting for an armoured box launcher for Javelin – I don’t think the current setup within Warrior equipped Armoured Infantry Battalions where the Maneuver Support Company carries its 12 Javelin launchers in pairs in the back of a standard Warrior is much cop for ‘maneuver’ warfare – you either have to de-buss completely or fire it from the troop compartment top hatches – not very satisfactory.
I would also reduce the Warrior battalions from 7 to 6 – providing enough spare hulls to replace the 8 x CVR(T)used in the Recce role by 8 more Warriors, and replacing the 6 x 81mm mortars in their venerable FV42 carriers with Warriors fitted with Patria NEMO 120mm mortars. See, told you, I have a fixation with 120mm mortars…..
Your proposal for a Challenger fire support BMPT-variant is interesting, but why go that route when you already have a good 120mm gun?
There are a myriad of cannon/missile alternatives possible, but the tank cannon is still a very precise, reliable and multi-purpose weapon, especially with (smoothbore) munitions currently available. The Israeli LAHAT guided tank round could fill a proposed (Javelin) ATGW requirement and 120mm ‘shotgun’ rounds have profen to be devastating.
I would only add a light mortar, as had the early Israeli Merkavas, for indirect fire support.
Regarding CRV-7s or similar rockets (APKWS etc.), they are primarily medium/long range weapons as these rockets need range to attain their stable ‘cruise’ speed to uncage their seeker heads. That ofcourse just takes mere seconds, but – again – the tank gun would be an equal if not superior weapon.
Rockets also need large (armored!) magazines stuck on top of the turret for free fields of fire and reloading is a b!tch, hence the lack of international enthusiasm for using them.
Cheers.
Peter, I agree about HESH but there are alternatives and with the smoothbore we would have a much greater choice of natures
Jed, I too am a big fan of AMOS/NEMO and will be addressing this in another post but my vision for the Challenger FSV was for a vehicle that has the same protection and perhaps better mobility than existing CR2 that can deal with targets at both high and low elevations, short and medium range. The mix of 40mm CTA with air bursting and multi mode fusing, 40mm and 7.62/12.7mm provides a good mix. By keeping at 40mm and below calibre the number of rounds carried can be pretty high.
Agree on Warrior with Javelin, it is very Heath Robinson to have the Javelin team dismount. I am hoping FRES will produce a replacement for the long out of service Striker/Swingfire which might address some of these issues.
Marcase, my thinking is that the 120mm is overkill in many situations where you need a measured response but in a short reaction time and at very high elevation. The 120mm main gun is not suitable at these high elevations and is not as fast to slew, lay and fire as an autocannon. The 40mm CTA can also have a dual feed mechanism so 2 ammunition natures can be selected at the flick of a switch. I would disagree that rockets need large armoured housings, many ATGW in similar mounts have minimal armour although you are correct about minimum range and reloading issues, they are cheap though!
One option for a lower-cost BMP-T might be to keep the Challenger 2 turret, but replace the 120mm gun with 1 or 2 40mm CTAs. A large number of rounds could feed direct from the turret bustle.
I wonder about the concept in general though. Is a 2 Challenger and 2 FSV troop really that much better than 4 Challengers?
I think I’d rather have a HAPC conversion based on the Challenger hull. Carrying infantry under max protection seems more valuable to me.
Such a major re-equipment of the Chally2 would be as expensive as a new tank (or more). Why not buy a modern foreign tank instead (or stick with the Chally2, as it is still useful)?
The most important job in army vehicle fleet management for the next years is to prevent that the MRAPitis increases overall weight and fuel consumption of maneuver elements much.
@Marcase:
120mm tank guns have serious deficiencies.
* Few very big shots are unsatisfactory if you want to shoot often (such as HE recce by fire).
* max gun elevation is only about 20°. autocannons can elevate up to 45-80°
* 120mm is quite incapable of fending off helicopters in most situations
* 120mm cannot kill UAVs
* 120mm muzzle blast creates a huge danger zone for infantry and civilians
* 120mm discarding Sabot creates an even greater danger zone for infantry and civilians
Sven, the L55 has already been fitted and fired from CR2, the engineering completed. The only thing really left to do would be the internal stowage of 1 piece ammunition.
A low cost/light(er) weight alternative could utilise the FV433 Abbot chassis. This could be upgraded like the the Bulldog, the two are very similar, and a 120 mm mortar could replace the 105 mm L13 gun, you could also add a cannon or two.
The smaller size and lighter weight of the vehicle would also allow it to access terrain and urban areas that would be off limits to the Challenger.
Have we got any left in storage or have they all been sold on ebay?
yes challenger 2 is awesome but the only variants that have made it to afghanistan are the engineering vehicles so the question that needs to be answered is why, considering the number of leopard 2s out there now, are there no challenger 2s?
I believe the answer is weight as a challenger 2 with all the theatre mods must weigh an awful lot, so a lighter infrantry support version similar to the Namer Merkava mod the israelis have done sounds interesting, except for the fact that the Merkava is front engined which makes it easier to convert. seems a bit wasteful to cart a small gun around and no infantry in such a big vehicle
Few other notes:
only abbots i’ve seen are in museums
and the problem with smoothbore HE rounds is the need for fin stabilisers takes away a large chunk of your explosive content, although I do understand the economics for doing it.
Lighter and cheaper than a Challenger Marksman, give it a Bulldog upgrade and voila! Ok, so its not that simple, but the pricipal is there.
http://arcaneafvs.com/FV433Abbot.html#FALCON
Unfortunately they only built one and that probably ended its days as a target on Salisbury Plain.
Richard your Abbot idea would have been great 25 years ago – I doubt your will find any outside of collectors these days, and why put the ancient chasis back into production.
However this is where to me CV90 wins over ASCOD for FRES – what you described is already being procured by Sweden, CV90 with AMOS turret (twin 120mm automatic mortars).
Or how about the C90120T tank with 120mm smoothbore gun firing NATO standard tank ammo ?
Or the CV90 anti-air variant if you want high angle fires (but replace the Bofors 40mm with a CTA 40mm), by the way this variant is already in production too.
Personally I think 40mm might be overkill for high angle fires in urban scenarios and would like to see the Challenger 2 or whatever, fitted with RWS with 12.7mm or 40mm grenade launchers, especially when the 40mm ‘fire control system’ can have laser ranger and time fuzing for air burst too. Fit a belt fed AA12 auto-shutgun firing the FRAG12 HE round – good out to 200m’s – probably good enough in the urban scenario ???
Have added a bit of extra content to the post
Jed, accepted the system as it stands would be out of date, I wasn’t suggesting new production only conversion of existing vehicles, as Bulldog was put back on the frontline despite its age. I should have put more details in my comments. I would like to see new systems like AMOS in action, but it would take an unacceptably long time to get it on the frontline, hence my suggestions of using an existing chassis as this would help speed up the process. If it proves its worth, put it on an ASCOD to bring the whole system up to date.
Given that FV432′s have previously carried Fox turrets an RWS system, or any combination could easily be bolted on top to test their viability in the field prior to acceptance. The Bulldog could also test the NEMO turret as opposed to the AMOS, given its smaller size.
Unfortunatley, as the CV90 has already been rejected, there’s very little chance of a variant ever making it into service, however good or whatever type it is.
The Abbot idea is great NOW, pull that socking great gun of the top and fit a 40mmCTA with a Coax, give it the bulldog treatment and bingo you have a very well armed pretty well protected medium/light vehicle, and if they were new builds based on the old designs you could go even further.
Frankly given the number of different chassis in use by the armed forces right now their is almost no need to brin in anything new unless it’s to take something else completely out of service
Here is an drawing of what could be a Leclerc mtb with 40 CTA.
The saturation effect would really be an advantage against any type of threat at less than 1500m.
http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2009/06/le-char-leclerc-que-vous-ne-verrez-sans-doute-jamais.html
Welcome to Think Defence P4, am going to put Secret Defense in the sites blog roll, even though it is in French.
The illustration is more or less exactly the same concept I was thinking about except for the manned turret. Although a manned turrent has some advantages I want the vehicle to have an extremely fast slewing and reaction time whilst keeping the crew stationary so from an ergonomic point of view I think unmanned wins out, it also means the crew are contained in a smaller contiguous section which makes air conditioning and NBC protection a little easier. I would put the primary sensors on an elevated mast to compensate for the low crew position
Given the requirements for the CR2 FSV, the 40mm CTA is not the logical choice. The rate of fire is lower than any other autocannon other than the RARDEN and the ammunition is large and expensive. Better suppressive affect can be had with the AHEAD series of rounds.
More logical choices would be:
Mauser MK30-2
High rate of fire (limited to 200rpm but the MK30-1, which is mostly the same gun, fires at 700rpm)
Fires the selected nature from the first shot, instantly
Commonly used ammunition (therefore cheap and readily available from a variety of sources)
Compatible with the Rheinmetall AHEAD ammunition or the ATK or GD ABM ammunition, for a variety of effects (AHEAD is a better suppressive tool, ABM is better for engaging targets behind defilade)
Small and light
simple ammunition handling
ATK Mk44
Decent rate of fire
Compatible with all 30x173mm rounds, including AHEAD and ABM rounds
Can be super-shotted to 40mm without changing much of the installation
Simple ammunition handling
Small and light
ATK Bushmaster III
Getting a bit big, really, but:
35x228mm is readily available, including as an AHEAD nature
Can be super-shotted to 50mm
Oerliken 35/1000 Gun
Ferocious rate of fire
AHEAD rounds
Mauser BK27
Common with Tornado and Typhoon
Available as a RWS
Really high rate of fire.
Doesn’t have ABM or AHEAD
Small rounds with a relatively large projectile
ATK M230 chaingun
High rate of fire (600 rpm)
multi-purpose ammunition removes the need to switch natures
No ABM
Very small round for the size of projectile, so large ammunition load.
Mr Fred – what is the rate of fire for 40mm CTA ? I have never seen it quoted in the sparse literature – do you have reference ? I am more interested from a naval perspective to be honest, but if you have figures please share.
I know it has both detractors and fans on this site, but would the boxer be cosidered as a suitable doner vehicle here, due to the fact it has the interchangeable pod on the back you could just change from 120mm mortar to 40mm or even a modern version of swingfire (as someone mentioned earlier).
This would give a greater flexibility to mission planning as the offical website quotes a module change time of 60-90 minutes. Just an idea mind!!!
The published rate of fire is cited as a maximum of 200rpm, the same as a Mk44 bushmaster, but if you run videos of the two guns firing together the Bushmaster sounds faster.
In the BAE FRES video that is on youtube, the firing is 3 rounds in 1.5-2 seconds, so that’s 90-120 rpm, but that’s an inexact measurement. Even if it’s 3 rounds in one second (which it isn’t) that’s a max of 180 rpm.
In the BAE Warrior video it seems to be 1 per second or thereabouts, for some reason, but that could be quick semi-auto.
A modern Swingfire would, logically, be a ground-launched Brimstone2, as that would have the ability to fire from defilade onto a target cued by another platform. FRES SV would seem like a logical platform.
That or something like NLOS-LS.
Firing rate is a valid point to make,
but you must also look to pénétration and the place/weight the gun take into the turet.
CTA amo may be more expensive but they are more compact than a classic 40mm.
A good “commercial” was available about CTA40 on the web.
It seems unnamed turret aren’t mature or it would be to expensive to develop or soldiers are reluctant to rely only on “screen” even if it would offer benefit in architecture if on new vehicule.
It was not that far.
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2005garm/wednesday/duckworth.pdf
Some more CTA stuff for your viewing pleasure
http://www.baesystemspresskit.com/ausa/userfiles/file/Single%20PDFs/CTAI%20brochure.pdf
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23067064/CTAS-Maturity-Briefing
The last one is very interesting
A related topic:
“The case for a medium calibre all-round gun”
http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2010/04/medium-calibre-allround-option.html
Thanks Sven, interesting article.
I looked at the RDF when researching one of the FRES articles, an interesting concept but isn’t the barrel rather long?
The Warrior with the 40mm cannon is an obvious improvement over the Rarden. However, the above picture of the Warrior MTIP2 shows a pronounced gap between the turret and the hull.
Does this not create a shot trap onto the turret ring, one of the most vulnerable points on the vehicle? Especially under the main armanent.
Any ex-tankies out there care to comment, is it a cause for concern?
“I looked at the RDF when researching one of the FRES articles, an interesting concept but isn’t the barrel rather long?”
That’s why I’ve cut it down to about 60cal for the example. The XM274 is barrel is about as long as the one of the 75mm L/70 Kwk 42 of the Panther was – about 70cal. That’s unnecesary; see the range info of the 62cal OTOMATIC (up to 6km against helo) and my waiver for the frontal MBT penetration requirement.
I suppose that it depends on how well the turret ring is armoured as to how vulnerable it is.
Both iraq wars proved the best weapon against a tank is another tank.
Depending on the gun fitted they can also make great direct fire platforms.
Very useful multi-target weapons.
HESH for example.
A doorman I worked with was a memeber of the Anglians. Says he went to Iraq once. A Chally was called up after a contact and they put a HESH round onto a building from which they were receiving fire. When the smoke cleared the building was now a pile of rubble, but everything else around it was practically untouched.
The accepted wisdom is also not to go into urban areas without armoured support, where (precision) firepower and protection are paramount.
In Basra the Infantry’s vehicles of choice were Warrior and then Bulldog. Challenger was regarded as indispensable. Warrior would have benefited from a higher axis/traverse ability on it’s weapon systems in order to engage enemy on high elevations (3+ stories on the same street) but this could be overcome by tactics. The Bulldog lacked speed and firepower but had better manoueverability and the Remote Weapon Station and optics were phenomenal.
If the purpose if the Challenger FSV is to engage RPG and ATGE teams as well as suppression and destruction of small vehicles and support weapons what is the purpose of the Warrior and Bulldog (or any FRES type equivalent) armaments? The Army does need a Fire Support Variant, but I believe this is more in line with the AVRe variant. Something not optimised to destroy fast moving targets while on the move (which Challenger is) but rather optimised to destroy or neutralise targets with precision fire in complex terrain . To do so it needs lots of protection, lots of firepower, and the ability to engage at close range with precision fires and to engage at up to 70degrees from the horizontal.
IF the Challenger 2 had a smoothbore gun it would be able to use the IMI APAMS round which is designed to engage muntiple types of threat from bunkers to dug in troop to soft and lightly armoured vehicles to helicopters. THis would allow it to fulfil the Fire support role more than adequately. IF we ever field a FSV variant of the medium Armoured Platform the 105mm APAMS would also be the ideal round for this. In both cases the platform can still engage Heavy Armour with APFSDS rounds if needed with then carrying both rounds, the ratio depending on mission.
Another option would be to re-investigate the old BAe Merlin mortar round or a variant of the Swedish Stryx. The first had a MMS while the latter was laser guided. Both would provide precision support to the infantry from their embeded Mortar. Stryx howeveer would require a reduction to 81mm but this should be no problem.
Hey all, this is a very old article.
Would you mind hanging on for the armour one in the latest series
Thanks
Sure TD, just a correction on “or a variant of the Swedish Stryx”
- they have IR-based guidance
- the manouverability is limited as they were meant to be used against massed/ massing armour formations (beef up infantry while own tanks were on the move or only on their way), so most would still find a target regardless
History shows merit in a pairing of tank & close support aircraft; Stuka/Panzer IV in 1940, Typhoon/Sherman 1944 (not forgetting Sturmovik/T34 on the Russian front).
So Apache needs to be teemed with Challenger 2.
Challenger 2 will need modernisation. Perhaps a NATO project for an electro thermal 135mm gun for tanks/self propelled guns/naval guns.
Plus 1500hp engine,more cctv for awareness, better IED protection.
The British army also needs lighter armour for urban situations. A modernised Ferret 80 at the bottom, then some sort of 30-37 ton tank that can be carried by A400M.