FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tony Williams »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I wonder what's wrong with the latest Abrams... just drop a diesel into it?
I have a recollection of reading about this not too long ago. It has certainly been proposed in the USA, and they might even have done it as a demonstration, not sure about that.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Yep, it was left at the same stage as the power upgrade for Ch2. My recollection (hazy) is that both have been tried with a fully running "prototype".
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

mr.fred wrote: The additional cost of rolling our own is offset in part by tax.
At least someone gets it !
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Heh-he, read this one:

http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bit ... sequence=1

Ch2 was not even short listed by the MoD, the MoD was forced to subsidise Leo/Abrams/ LeClerc turning up in the competition (as the companies knew a national horse would win anyway)... and win it did. There is a nice table giving the reasons why (the four main decision makers do not include the MoD).
- so basically what we are discussing here is finding remedies to that early 90's decision
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

mr.fred wrote:
Tinman wrote: For us to design build and operate our own MBT in the future would be costly and a serious error In judgement when we could just buy in from Germany or America.
The USA won't have one ready for when we need it.
The Germans/French may, but there's no guarantee that it will fit into our concept of operations.
The additional cost of rolling our own is offset in part by tax.
Not with the amount we would buy, have a look at the F35. We will get 15% of all revenue from each purchase. Because of the numbers being bought.

Say we buy 400 bespoke British designed MBT, costing well over the market price for next gen Abraham, leopard.
What's the real term net gain? Could we hope to export? Look at what we have exported in the past?

No one wants to buy our stuff (apart from the Saudi).

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

Then there's the through life costs, the ammunition, engines etc.

Look how CR2 has fared with upgrades and improved ammunition.

We buy from let say the Americans we become part of there logistics and upgrade system.

Like the chinooks, AH64, C130, E3D.

Many American buys are delivered ahead of schedule u see cost.

Don't misunderstand me for a lover of all American it's an example of bang for buck.

Those that throw the money we gain from tax should really look at the cost of WAH64 per unit.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

If we were to buy American, we'd
1) end up with another tank with growing obsolescence
2) modify it to bring in to our standards, thus taking it out of the US upgrade line
3) not spend the money to upgrade in line with the US, thus falling back further into obsolescence
4) not be able to get the latest stuff anyway due to ITAR

Also, while some US buys are ahead of schedule and under cost, many are behind schedule and over cost.
Of the four examples you give, we've managed to make some kind of mess of three of them, and I don't know so much about the E3D.

WAH64 vs AH64D, I've never really seen a directly comparable cost for the two. It's pretty difficult because of the differences between the two equipment fits.

What I would suggest, for improving the longevity and export potential and reducing the cost, that any new heavy vehicle design look towards using standard components where possible, with an eye to also making a replacement troop carrier to replace Warrior, as well as recovery, engineering and support vehicles. The more vehicles using a subsystem reduces the cost as if you had a larger buy (although in likely numbers, not so much that you would notice) as well as reducing training costs for the whole fleet. Covering the entire heavy combat vehicle fleet would bump the numbers from 200 or so to 700 and up. Meanwhile, pick a gun, or make it compatible with a range of guns and/or ammunition readily available and in use across the world, rather than specify our own special snowflake cannon with unique ammunition. Try and design mounts and features in such a way that they can easily switch sights, met sensors, armour, defence systems, cameras etc. to something else - don't tie them in to one supplier and maybe it's more attractive on the international market, as the customer can have their own local equipment.

On engine power, I'd be cautious about charging ahead for high power, when torque and reliability are equally, if not more, important for AFVs. If you could use the engine control systems to optionally de-rate the engine, only drawing on the power when necessary, that could save you quite a bit without affecting your overall mobility.
But then maybe the future is hybrid...

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7931
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by SKB »

5) Have poorer 'gas' mileage.
6) Be unable to turn corners. Or drive in sand (ala 'Gulf War 1991')
7) Have a left-side steering wheel.
8) Have leaf spring suspension. Probably.
9) Be built cheaply, to the lowest bidder quality standard.
10) Have your position easily given away by the big and conspicuous convoy of tank-support vehicles constantly following behind you.

:lol:

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

Tinman wrote:No one wants to buy our stuff (apart from the Saudi).
No correct, we make excellent kit that people do want, just policies get in the way.
I think every rafale order should have gone to typhoon, and probably would have done if it was one nation calling the shots (like France)
And even with the crap policies the UK is still one of the biggest exporters by value globally.

mr.fred wrote:But then maybe the future is hybrid...
I hope so. Gas turbine electric tank would make me very happy!
Also I suspect it would be very powerful and reliable.

I cant believe so many people think we should just buy everything from the Americans. The Americans screw everything up (slight exaggeration I know), they just have the pockets to be able to fix their cock ups. I can totally advocate buying from them at the component level and aiming for cross comparability, but not just buying the whole package, that's not how you become strong, that's how you become bitch.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

An Abrams on a diesel would travel three times further without an increase in combat weight (OK, surge speed and acceleration would probably suffer, as would maintenance hours and engine bloc change intervals).

But further, aren't turbines very wasteful "on idle"? So, to stay action ready you still burn huge quantities of fuel ( as a unit). Hence the going hybrid on the turbine version could be appealing. (Anyway, the development contract for the new turbine has been given out to Honeywell+GE, and it is going to be 30% better on every measurement... as usual).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tony Williams »

A gas turbine exhaust also produces a high volume of hot gas which is much easier to spot with thermal imagers.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

shark bait wrote:It wouldn't be anywhere as bad as astute, thats the point I'm trying to make.
We already build things 'similar' to a tank.
We didn't build anything remotely like astute before that came along.
Trafalgar Class, Swiftsure Class, Vanguard Class.

"similar to tank" Trojan? Terrier?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

Tinman wrote:
Trafalgar Class, Swiftsure Class, Vanguard Class.

"similar to tank" Trojan? Terrier?
Not at all what I mean.
If you read my past coments I am talking about component level manufacturing. Right now the UK produces commercially almost every component of a tank. The uk does not build commercially many of the components of a nuclear submarine.
@LandSharkUK

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Tony Williams wrote:A gas turbine exhaust also produces a high volume of hot gas which is much easier to spot with thermal imagers.
Is it? I thought that the exhaust plume is normally invisible to TI. Anything it impinges on is a different matter, but hot gas is transparent.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

shark bait wrote:
Tinman wrote:
Trafalgar Class, Swiftsure Class, Vanguard Class.

"similar to tank" Trojan? Terrier?
Not at all what I mean.
If you read my past coments I am talking about component level manufacturing. Right now the UK produces commercially almost every component of a tank. The uk does not build commercially many of the components of a nuclear submarine.
Commercial components? Really?

Are you twelve.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

Tony Williams wrote:A gas turbine exhaust also produces a high volume of hot gas which is much easier to spot with thermal imagers.
not really true. A large modern diesel will have a thermal efficiency of around 35%, petrol around 25% and simple cycle gas turbine 30-40% so for the same work you are sending roughly the same amount of heat out the exhaust.

Tinman wrote: Commercial components? Really?

Are you twelve.
nope that is a perfectly valid statement.
@LandSharkUK

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Tinman wrote: Commercial components? Really?

Are you twelve.
I'd be interested in hearing why you disagree.
Certainly more interested than I am in vague implication and childish insults.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tinman »

mr.fred wrote:
Tinman wrote: Commercial components? Really?

Are you twelve.
I'd be interested in hearing why you disagree.
Certainly more interested than I am in vague implication and childish insults.
Commercial standards, look at HMS Ocean, for an example at how commercial vs military stands up.

The cost of regenerating MBT production is?

Where do we produce them? Do we build new plants for that?

The old vickers plant on the Tyne is specialising in Other than MBT.

Plus it's no longer in BAE. Which is either a blessing or a curse.

Just to go back to the commercial argument, there's plenty of commercial firearms out there, body armour, lids, parachutes, ive used military versions, all apart from parachutes on ops, yet I wonder why commercial items are not comparable on levels of protection etc.

If shark bait wants a tank made on commercial spec, let him face the first round coming the other way.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

Tinman wrote:
If shark bait wants a tank made on commercial spec, let him face the first round coming the other way.
I never said commercial spec, your now making things up to fuel your own argument.

Let's dumb it down for you. David brown are an engineering company, operating commercially, on public sector contracts. A big part if their business is transmission, particularly for tractors. However once called upon they use a higher grade alloy, add some thickness to components and use the same engineers , fitters , equipment and suppliers to produce gear boxes for tanks and boats, in fact I believe it is a david brown inside the challenger 2, and will be in the type 26. Here they can use existing skills and plant to save money and benifit from existing purchasing power and economies of scale

Now let's compare that to the nuclear reactor built by Rolls Royce. That department only builds the components for uk nuclear sub's. Any lull in activity means staff are laid off, skills and equipment are lost. Rebuilding the capability is now difficult where as david brown will carry on through the lull based on their other commercial operations.

The story is similar for suspension components, the electronics, the engine, the weapon's, the hull, and everything else. All we are lacking is a place to put them all together.
@LandSharkUK

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tony Williams »

shark bait wrote:
Tony Williams wrote:A gas turbine exhaust also produces a high volume of hot gas which is much easier to spot with thermal imagers.
not really true. A large modern diesel will have a thermal efficiency of around 35%, petrol around 25% and simple cycle gas turbine 30-40% so for the same work you are sending roughly the same amount of heat out the exhaust.
That doesn't sound right to me: the thermal efficiency is surely closely related to the fuel consumption, and it is widely acknowledged that the fuel consumption of a GT is significantly higher than a comparable diesel. So if the Abrams GT is burning up a lot more fuel while doing the same work, that must mean more surplus heat, which AFAIK can only go out the exhaust.

A quick trawl of sites concerning this subject has come up with a number of references to the high quantity of hot exhaust gases causing the vehicle to generate a larger thermal signature, for example:

http://turbotrain.net/en/m1tank.htm
High temperature, large amount of exhaust gases emitted infrared signals and were attractive target to infrared seeking missiles.
and: http://aviationweek.com/defense/tank-ba ... convention
The cooling system replaces the turbine’s exhaust — reducing the tank’s thermal signature — and the diesel exhaust is located in the upper rear side area of the hull, above the tracks, using complex mufflers to match the turbine’s lower noise signature.
and: http://www.g2mil.com/abramsdiesel.htm
Infra-red technology made quantum advances over the three decades since the Abrams was designed. The Abrams gas turbine engine puts out 1000F degrees of heat, four times more than diesel engines. As a result, they can be detected and targeted much farther away, and take much longer to cool down when a tank needs to hide. In addition, this allows an enemy to easily distinguish the big bright plume of an Abrams tank from a truck or any other engine. This has become a greater problem with new infra-red guided munitions. Many modern anti-tank missiles, artillery and mortar rounds use infra-red sensors to detect engines. Obviously, a tank producing four times more heat is four times more likely to attract attention and incoming munitions.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Depuis 1994

The problem is that the bad guys now widely have them, too, with delivery systems covering the whole depth of a brigade's typical deployment area... as attested to by the footage available from Ukraine, with a lot of top kills in evidence.

" Projectile guidance technology has already been used since 1994 in 120 mm mortars, with the IR homing Bofors/Saab Strix. This weapon can engage targets at a range of 7 km, operates in an autonomous heat-seeking mode which can intelligibly recognize targets and discriminate targets among decoys and burning targets. Strix has been in service with the Swedish Army since 1994 and also has been ordered by the Swiss Army. It is optimized as an anti-armor weapon, defeating targets with top-attack"

Side thrusters employed are not mentioned in that quote, but the considerable manoeuvrability means that you can use area targetting (just knowing roughly behind which hill the tanks are massing, in preparation). The point is that even an infantry bn can be equipped to fight Abrams (other tanks, too, but we are discussing the differences in heat signature), and the delivery in artillery shells or rocketry out to 100 km is just an added extra.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

Tony Williams wrote: That doesn't sound right to me: the thermal efficiency is surely closely related to the fuel consumption, and it is widely acknowledged that the fuel consumption of a GT is significantly higher than a comparable diesel. So if the Abrams GT is burning up a lot more fuel while doing the same work, that must mean more surplus heat, which AFAIK can only go out the exhaust.
nope it isnt, a GT is the most efficient combustion engine.
The thing is at a low rpm they are terrible, however at the high rpm they are designed to run at they are great. This is why they are terrible for direct drive, plus big start up times and power lag. Unfortunately the Abrams doesn't charge round at full speed all the time, so doesn't make good use of the turbines efficiencies. Also its turbine was designed 40 years ago, so will be a good few percentage points off today's turbines.

The best use of a turbine is driving a shaft at a near constant speed, such as a turbofan or generator. For use in a tank I couldn't recommend it for direct drive, but in and electric hybrid system it could be great. In such a system it would run at the same optimum speed all day long, turning a generator and delivering great efficiencies. The design then has great power density, good efficiency, low moving parts, is modular, and the electric motors can be placed very close to the point of delivery reducing transmission components. It would be a great system if you could get the batteries right.

If you felt like upping the complexity even more introduce a combined cycle system and you will get fantastic thermal efficiencies. 60%+ is not unreasonable then.

edit: just thought of a another great thing. You could have an array of micro turbines. That means if one breaks you still have the others to keep the vehicle moving. That could make the vehicle seriously robust. Have a micro turbine and generator module that can be dropped straight, in and maintenance is pretty simple too.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
just-me-again
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 01 May 2015, 02:23
United Kingdom

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by just-me-again »

shark bait wrote:
Tinman wrote:
If shark bait wants a tank made on commercial spec, let him face the first round coming the other way.
I never said commercial spec, your now making things up to fuel your own argument.
Basically most commercial companies produce commercial-spec equipment because they are not aimed at the military audiance, and a lot of them don't even possess the tooling necessary for mil-spec anything. Only a few companies in the UK do have that capability because they are producing weapons for either the British army or foreign armies i.e. accuracy international.

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: 06 May 2015, 06:50
Contact:

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Tony Williams »

shark bait wrote:
Tony Williams wrote: That doesn't sound right to me: the thermal efficiency is surely closely related to the fuel consumption, and it is widely acknowledged that the fuel consumption of a GT is significantly higher than a comparable diesel. So if the Abrams GT is burning up a lot more fuel while doing the same work, that must mean more surplus heat, which AFAIK can only go out the exhaust.
nope it isnt, a GT is the most efficient combustion engine.
But the whole point of fitting an Abrams with a diesel engine is to extend the range considerably, because of the much lower fuel burn. So in practice, the GT must be producing more heat.

A GT may well be very efficient at constant high speed, but that's rather irrelevant since we are talking about the real-world performance of the GT in the Abrams compared with an equivalent diesel.
The best use of a turbine is driving a shaft at a near constant speed, such as a turbofan or generator. For use in a tank I couldn't recommend it for direct drive, but in and electric hybrid system it could be great. In such a system it would run at the same optimum speed all day long, turning a generator and delivering great efficiencies. The design then has great power density, good efficiency, low moving parts, is modular, and the electric motors can be placed very close to the point of delivery reducing transmission components. It would be a great system if you could get the batteries right.

edit: just thought of a another great thing. You could have an array of micro turbines. That means if one breaks you still have the others to keep the vehicle moving. That could make the vehicle seriously robust. Have a micro turbine and generator module that can be dropped straight, in and maintenance is pretty simple too
See the Jaguar C-X75: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by shark bait »

Tony Williams wrote: See the Jaguar C-X75: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_C-X75
I love that jag concept, I totally hope the revive it!
It is that concept, but inside tank that I would like to see. That's the correct way to use a GT, not the Abrams way.
@LandSharkUK

Post Reply