Military Review

The British decided to extend the service "Challenger" to 2035 g

45
The British military are holding a contest for the modernization of the OBT Challenger 2, in order to "breathe new life into them", reports Military Parity with reference to western media.




“BAE Systems and General Dynamics UK joined the Leonardo-Finmeccanica, Moog Inc., QinetiQ and Safran Electronics group, and formed the Team Challenger 2 industry team to participate in the UK Defense Ministry competition. Earlier, CMI Defense, Krauss Maffei Wegmann, Lockheed Martin and Ruag responded to the call for participation in the tender, ”the article says.

It is noted that “the army command decided to extend the life of tanks from 2025 for another 10 years, that is, until 2035. "

According to the media, "Lockheed Martin feels most confident with its experience in implementing Ajax programs (supplier of towers for a remote-controlled combat module) and the Warrior BMP (improving the logistics system)."

Also appreciates their chances of merging companies General Dynamics and BAE.

It is expected that the winner will be selected in 2019 g, then the start of the production process is also planned.

According to experts, "the main part of the modernization of the tank will be equipping it with a remotely controlled combat module, as well as the replacement of the gunner's thermal sight, the commander's sight, the fire control system and the improvement of on-board electronics."

Photos used:
youtube.com
45 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Berserks
    Berserks 6 June 2016 12: 33
    +5
    The degradation of the armies of NATO countries is not news for a long time. The Challenger is no longer relevant, but what will happen in 20 years.
    1. CORNET
      CORNET 6 June 2016 12: 43
      +2
      They hope again to sit out on their island and skim the cream ... Gentlemen, there’s already a queue ..)))) But Russia, this time will not be sorted out! (the buttons have already been erased by the operators, training ..)))) Rob the world will not work for you! Russians came .....
      1. carp
        carp 6 June 2016 17: 31
        +2
        It is strange that ours did not apply for participation in the tender. We have extensive experience in upgrading tanks.
        1. svp67
          svp67 6 June 2016 19: 15
          +2
          Quote: carpag
          It is strange that ours did not apply for participation in the tender. We have extensive experience in upgrading tanks.

          Experience experience, and money apart ...
    2. Pereira
      Pereira 6 June 2016 12: 46
      +9
      Stupid people.
      They urgently need to apply for the best tank on the planet - Tirex.
      1. GSH-18
        GSH-18 7 June 2016 10: 11
        0
        Quote: Pereira
        Stupid people.
        They urgently need to apply for the best tank on the planet - Tirex.

        Yes they a "Tirex" and themselves from old garbage cans can cook laughing
    3. Maksus
      Maksus 6 June 2016 12: 49
      +4
      They decided, one would think that there is a choice. Too early, NATO believed that they would have more than enough drones, Apaches / Tigers, and MRAPs for war.
    4. Verdun
      Verdun 6 June 2016 12: 52
      +18
      Quote: Berserks
      Challenger is now not relevant, but what will happen in 20 years.

      Challenger 2 is a very perfect tank. Since its inception, it was rated higher than Abrams, and some experts believed that its capabilities were higher than that of Leopard-2. Due to its large mass - 62,5 tons and relatively low mobility - 56 km / h, it is difficult to compare this tank with the Russian ones. But in terms of the basic level of protection, it surpasses both American and German, and, most likely, Russian vehicles. Disregarding the Challenger is clearly not worth it. Moreover, if the modernization is successful. I can't understand one thing. Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and BAE are listed as companies participating in the modernization competition. And what about Vickers Defense Systems, which actually developed the tank, is it devoid of trust?
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 6 June 2016 14: 06
        +15
        "Challenger 2 is a very perfect tank" ////

        Challenger is considered a failure of the British. After their "finest hour" of the 60s - the Centurion tank, they did so-so Chieftain and completely incomprehensible Challenger.
        Particularly puzzling is the "ship" separate loading.
        At the Greek tender, he showed himself poorly. Abrams even at night shoots exactly like in the daytime (and the forehead is quite rhinoceros). Leopard-2 had the highest overall rating (shooting, cross-country ability, marches, protection, maintenance).
        And Challenger shot poorly, and patency / marches are not very.
        Israel was lucky that because of the embargo, the British refused to sell it to us, and Israel started the Merkava project.
        1. Altona
          Altona 6 June 2016 14: 35
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Challenger is considered a failure of the British. After their "finest hour" of the 60s - the Centurion tank, they did so-so Chieftain and completely incomprehensible Challenger.

          --------------------------
          The British, 5-7 years ago, generally announced the decline of the "armored era", the unpromising nature of this type of weapon in connection with the "island defense doctrine". That is, they are not going to roll across the expanses of the continents and are betting on high-precision missile systems, aviation, both aircraft and helicopter, well, all kinds of weapons derived from this, as well as various means of landing. Apparently, they rushed to conclusions about the decommissioning of the tank as an "irrelevant" type of weapon.
          PS I agree with the conclusions, the tank is awkward. Even outwardly. With such a mass, the chassis already raises questions. All "brothers" in this class are on 7 rollers, this one on 6 with a comparable weight.
          1. Verdun
            Verdun 6 June 2016 15: 03
            +2
            Quote: Altona
            All "brothers" in this class are on 7 rollers, this one on 6 with a comparable weight.

            Why is everyone so attached to the number of rollers? You can make five instead of six. Well, the springs or suspension torsions will be thicker. We'll have to make the rollers themselves and their fingers stronger. Take other bearings ... How does this relate to the mass of the tank? There, the same Belazs carry around 80-100 tons, plus their own weight, and does not bother anyone that they have only two axles.
            1. Altona
              Altona 6 June 2016 16: 27
              +3
              Quote: Verdun
              Why is everyone so attached to the number of rollers?

              ------------------------
              Ground pressure very much depends on this. And on the caterpillar itself. But as you say yourself "fingers are thicker" and the rest. By your commentary would you like to say that the designers of "Abrams", "Leo-2", "Armata" are worse than the designers of "Challenger-2"? Or should I just hint at it? Although I have been engaged in vehicles for 17 years.
              1) In the case of a 7-roller scheme, the load transfer to the conventional axis of 2 rollers is less than or equal to 10 tons, that is, it does not threaten public roads. With a 6-roller is already more than 10.
              2) Comparison with BelAZ is not entirely correct, since it is a car for a quarry. The design of the chassis is determined by the size of the electric gear motors that rotate the wheels. Ground pressure is leveled by a large contact patch of huge tires.
              1. Verdun
                Verdun 6 June 2016 17: 51
                +1
                Quote: Altona
                Ground pressure very much depends on this.

                Ground pressure mainly depends on the construction of track tracks. If you use caterpillars of the type of snowcat, then, regardless of the number of rollers, you can make sure that the car does not fall through even in the snow.
                By your commentary would you like to say that the designers of "Abrams", "Leo-2", "Armata" are worse than the designers of "Challenger-2"? Or should I just hint at it? Although I have been engaged in vehicles for 17 years.
                And I - more than 30. And the Japanese Type-90 has six road wheels with a vehicle weight of more than 50 tons, and the K2 "Black Panther" also has six, with a mass of more than 55 tons. What do you think the fools created? For each case, the number of road wheels is selected individually. Based on specific requirements and machine layout. In particular, smaller transmission and suspension assemblies are somewhat easier to assemble. It is well known, however, that long tracks with a large number of rollers impair maneuverability. And the tank is not intended to move on public roads at all. And it's not just the axle load. He has slightly different dimensions.
        2. Verdun
          Verdun 6 June 2016 14: 47
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          At the Greek tender, he showed himself no matter.

          As far as I know, Challenger 2 was not offered for export. For this, the British developed the FV4201 Chieftain and Vickers Valiant Mk7, developed at the same time as the Challenger. In addition, the difference between the export version and the version for yourself is often quite significant. At the same time, I would like to understand why many people persistently consider separate charging as a disadvantage. apparently in some countries loaders are grown genetically? To drag back and forth at least 20 kg worth of horseradish is still a pleasure ...
        3. Verdun
          Verdun 6 June 2016 15: 09
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Israel was lucky that because of the embargo, the British refused to sell it to us, and Israel started the Merkava project.

          Maybe lucky. But after all, it was not Abrams who wanted to buy, nor Leopard-2. wink
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 6 June 2016 15: 48
            +2
            Israel was impressed by Centurion and thought that the British would shine again. There was no Abrams yet, and he was immediately created as a tank destroyer, and Israel needed a more versatile machine. Leo-2 just got done.
            1. Verdun
              Verdun 6 June 2016 16: 38
              +1
              Abrams was not yet
              Leo-2 just got done.
              Pay attention.
              Leopard-2 - adopted in 1979.
              M1A1 Abrams - adopted in 1980.
              Challenger 2 - began to enter the army in 1983.
          2. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 6 June 2016 15: 48
            -1
            Israel was impressed by Centurion and thought that the British would shine again. There was no Abrams yet, and he was immediately created as a tank destroyer, and Israel needed a more versatile machine. Leo-2 just got done.
        4. Maksus
          Maksus 6 June 2016 17: 37
          +1
          And you do not confuse Challenger and Challenger2? These are different cars, although somewhat similar. The second Challenger with 1995 in the army ...
          And the tank is not bad, albeit somewhat slow. But the British after Centurion speed is not the main criterion.
        5. zennon
          zennon 6 June 2016 20: 30
          0
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And Challenger shot poorly, and patency / marches are not very.

          As for cross-country ability, yes, the mass is large, but shooting? He has a rifled gun. It must be accurate.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Nix1986
        Nix1986 6 June 2016 14: 09
        +3
        I’ll join, the tank is now at the level of LEO 2 and abrams, maybe it only loses to the lekler or the Korean panther. We have not yet invented a tank phaser or railgun, so the tank is at a level and you just need to upgrade it.
      4. svp67
        svp67 6 June 2016 19: 19
        +1
        Quote: Verdun
        Challenger 2 is a very advanced tank. Since its inception, it was rated higher than Abrams, and some experts believed that its capabilities are higher than that of Leopard-2.

        For the time being, he was regarded as such, and his reputation was greatly enhanced after participating in hostilities in Iraq, but only thanks to his high security. But maneuverability, mobility and a complex of weapons has many complaints.
        At all joint competitions "Challenger" has never bypassed "Abrams" and "Leo2" Moreover, this year they could not bypass the Polish "Tvyardy"
        1. Verdun
          Verdun 6 June 2016 19: 35
          +1
          Quote: svp67
          For the time being, he was regarded as such, and his reputation was greatly enhanced after participating in hostilities in Iraq,

          Indeed, there is evidence that:
          In Iraq, Challengers 2 fought mostly southward, in the Basra region and the Fao Peninsula. The only documented fact of the destruction of a tank of this type is Challenger-2, which was shot down when the Allies entered Baghdad, as the reason for the defeat is indicated as "friendly fire" ("friendly fire", that is, defeat from the fire of their own units or units of the allies) . Actual losses (apparently, mainly not irretrievable) could be 5-10 units.

          Source: http://www.modernarmy.ru/article/302/tank-challenger-2 © Portal "Modern Army"

          This despite the fact that the losses of the Abrams are estimated at about 80 cars. An absolute disadvantage of Challenger-2 should be considered the absence of remote sensing. So that’s why we need modernization. As for the various tank competitions, it is not surprising that in disciplines that take into account the passage time of the training ground, an English tank loses to other vehicles that are 20 km / h faster than it. However, war is not always like competition.
          1. svp67
            svp67 6 June 2016 19: 47
            +1
            Quote: Verdun
            I wonder why did he spoil his reputation?

            The question is not clear ...
            Quote: Verdun
            An absolute disadvantage of Challenger-2 should be considered the absence of remote sensing. So that’s why we need modernization.

            I do not consider the absence of DZ as a disadvantage, for me the "non-explosive modules" are better, but nevertheless the British agree with you, and not with me and with the Germans INSTALLED on part of their "Human" DZ "ROMOR" take a closer look its elements are clearly visible on the side screens of the hull and turret
            or on board and NLD
            .
            Quote: Verdun
            that in disciplines where the passage time of the landfill is taken into account, an English tank loses to other vehicles that are 20 km / h faster than it.
            Yes, but it still takes into account the range and speed of detection, as well as the accuracy of the defeat, and with this indicator they are not doing well. The English parliament even specially convened about this, but so far nothing positive has been seen in changing this parameter.
            1. Verdun
              Verdun 6 June 2016 20: 07
              0
              Quote: svp67
              Yes, but it also takes into account the range and speed of detection

              But this is basically the problem of the sighting system, which can be replaced if desired. Another thing is that such a complex should be available. I know that in the field of such developments, the British do not shine. but there are quite competent suppliers from NATO countries - French GIAT, German Rheinmetall Defense Electronics. In the course of the planned modernization, the problem is solved.
              1. svp67
                svp67 6 June 2016 20: 19
                0
                Quote: Verdun
                But this is basically the problem of the sighting system, which, if desired, can be replaced

                They have their own sample created on the basis of the Abrams FCS, but why they haven’t carried out a replacement yet, this is the question I cannot answer. Apparently they do not see the need for this and save money.
    5. vodolaz
      vodolaz 6 June 2016 13: 04
      +1
      The new one is expensive to develop.
      1. Verdun
        Verdun 6 June 2016 13: 11
        +3
        Quote: vodolaz
        The new one is expensive to develop.

        I must say that the article does not say anything about whether the British are going to develop a new tank. It is only about the modernization of already standing in service with machines. Cars, it should be noted, are not bad. And since conceptual breakthroughs in the development of MBT are not particularly observed, there is no point in writing off the equipment that is quite able to serve. The Britons will develop a new tank - they will have both a new machine and upgraded Challengers.
    6. Lt. Air Force stock
      Lt. Air Force stock 6 June 2016 18: 40
      +1
      Quote: Berserks
      The degradation of the armies of NATO countries is not news for a long time. The Challenger is no longer relevant, but what will happen in 20 years.

      And with whom are they fighting? They don’t have a land border, they live on an island (a tunnel under a polish is not considered).
      The scenario in which enemy tanks will land from landing ships is unlikely, they have aircraft, a fleet, and probably coastal systems with anti-ship missiles, I am silent about MLRS and artillery that will not allow landing ships to land.
    7. GSH-18
      GSH-18 7 June 2016 10: 08
      0
      Quote: Berserks
      The degradation of the armies of NATO countries is not news for a long time. The Challenger is no longer relevant, but what will happen in 20 years.

      Nothing! If that is, the Germans will vparyat their old "Leopards" lol
    8. Ze Kot
      Ze Kot 8 June 2016 22: 54
      0
      Quote: Berserks
      Challenger is no longer relevant


      And the T-72B3? And compared to the Challenger?
  2. The comment was deleted.
  3. Stabilization
    Stabilization 6 June 2016 12: 36
    +1
    DZ blocks are so massive, large, in comparison ... In general, a hefty contraption is so bulky.
    1. Vadim237
      Vadim237 6 June 2016 12: 41
      +1
      In these blocks, most likely not only dynamic protection, but also ceramic armor.
  4. Barakuda
    Barakuda 6 June 2016 12: 39
    +1
    An expensive, large and quite decent tank for the UK. In short, let them rejoice. Well, if Lockheed Martin is connected, how much will the upgrade cost them?
    1. gray smeet
      gray smeet 6 June 2016 12: 51
      +1
      Quote: Barracuda
      Well, if Lockheed Martin gets connected, how much will the upgrade cost them?


      If Lockheed Martin connects, then the plane will turn out ... some sort of F-35 laughing
      1. Maksus
        Maksus 6 June 2016 22: 33
        0
        But what, F-35 still became an airplane? I thought he was a Penguin)))
  5. Berkut24
    Berkut24 6 June 2016 12: 40
    +2
    And what to do ... Each island wants to have a land army.
  6. Andrey K
    Andrey K 6 June 2016 12: 51
    +5
    As recently as a year ago, the entire "democratic" community, together with experts from enlightened Europe, made fun of the T-14 - either "made of plywood", then he himself does not go, and so on and so forth ... request
    And here, here you are - the citadel of European democracy, gathers a thread from the world, so that its sobs can extend the resource laughing
    Not a new one by 2035 to release, but to prolong the agony of this trash wassat
    1. Nehist
      Nehist 6 June 2016 13: 52
      +2
      Dear, how many are we already upgrading 72? Can we also get rid of this stuff? But what about the rich !!! Or do you recall in what year the T-34 was removed from service?
      1. Andrey K
        Andrey K 6 June 2016 15: 29
        +8
        Quote: Nehist
        Dear, how many are we already upgrading 72? Can we also get rid of this stuff? But what about the rich !!!

        Dear, in addition to the modernized T-72s, we have practically new T-90s (and modifications) and in the backlog of T-14 ...
        Dear, why this speech request
        I specifically pointed out in my comment - the UK has nothing new, the old rubbish gathered to upgrade request
        What's wrong?
        PS
        Quote: Nehist
        Or do you recall in what year the T-34 was removed from service?

        Why are you, dear, about our legend request
        They removed it from us, but in Bosnia and Herzegovina - 5; Vietnam - 45; Guinea - 30; Guinea-Bissau - 10; Yemen - 30; DPRK - about 1500 !!!; in Cuba, several hundred (there is no exact figure now); Laos - 10; in Mali - 21; in Namibia - several dozen, the state is not known ... Somehow early you wrote it off request
        Dear, what you wanted to "remind" me about hi
  7. Ros 56
    Ros 56 6 June 2016 12: 53
    +1
    As far as I understand, the Naglich people are planning to tense with money and decided to take the path of least resistance. Well, that is also an option, what's the difference what to substitute under "Armata". fellow
    1. Ros 56
      Ros 56 6 June 2016 15: 10
      +1
      What, someone does not agree, where does the minus come from? What kind of fashion do some morons put minus and hide. I do not agree, write in color, we will discuss. Maybe when the time will be. lol
  8. Barakuda
    Barakuda 6 June 2016 12: 59
    +1
    Quote: Ros 56
    what's the difference what to substitute under "Armata"

    They have been "substituting" for a long time, "Armata" clearly will not be the first. winked
  9. NEXUS
    NEXUS 6 June 2016 13: 18
    +6
    For 2014, the British are armed with 227 Challenger-2 tanks. I suppose they have enough, since England is an island state and it is much more relevant to develop and maintain the marine component. In extreme cases, by the 30th year someone from the European countries or mattresses will develop a tank of the level of Almaty and in this case the Anglo-Saxons will be able to purchase them, if necessary.
  10. Signaller
    Signaller 6 June 2016 15: 13
    0
    Here are the goodies. Ours. Russian, or then the USSR tanks encountered them. Weaknesses are known. May they prolong their life. It will be easier for us from this, definitely.
  11. faiver
    faiver 6 June 2016 16: 18
    +2
    Who cares what they want or do there? 227 tanks on the island a couple of thousand kilometers from the western border of Russia, we didn’t rest anywhere :)
  12. masiya
    masiya 6 June 2016 16: 50
    +1
    Considering that this tank has been modernized at least twice since 1994, there is still a margin of safety ... and the Britons want to have their own model in service, such a whim ..