UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 28 Jan 2019, 18:54

RetroSicotte wrote:Well, I have good news for you, some information has been found on the L55A1s limits.

http://rusjev.net/2019/01/25/eksperimen ... -navyilet/

Not fully official, but it mentions this:
Rh120L55A1 has a permissible pressure in the barrel bore up to 700 MPa, against 670 MPa in standard Rh120L55

This would put it in range to safely use the M829A4. Whether it's acquired is of course unlikely, but it means it is possible!


Great stuff. So at the very least it will be there in case of emergency. Heartening to know.


And a very exciting little tidbit...
Germanization will also affect the power plant of the tank. Instead of the Perkins “Condor” CV12 diesel, with a capacity of 1,200 hp, which is clearly not enough for a 60-ton colossus, a unified MTO with the German diesel MTU MT-883 Ka-501 with a power of 1,630 hp will be installed. and automatic transmission Renk.

HP isn't everything, but that would be the most powerful tank engine in NATO in sheer grunt. The M1s turbine and the Leclercs unique supercharger may give them edges in acceleration still, but that is a LOT of power.


Though i am likely oversimplifying, to put this into perspective, a powerpack like this would provide a fully Streetfighter configured Challenger with a power to weight ratio of over 20hp per ton! That's at least as much as the tank had when new!

It's pipe dream thinking to imagine every upgrade, but if all this was taken up it would mean:

1. The Challenger would gain the most powerful gun in NATO.
2. The Challenger would have the newest turret in NATO, with the newest armour.
3. The Challenger would be one of only two western tanks with completely protected crew compartments from ammo detonations.
4. The Challenger would have the highest rated engine in NATO.
5. The Challenger would be one of only two with APS (since the M1 will get APS before this enters service)
6. The Challenger would be using one of the best APFSDS rounds in the world.
7. The Challenger would finally have the same hunter-killer as everyone else.

Talk about rags to riches.


It's a tantalising prospect for sure. Though just on the point of armour, i believe i am right in stating that the "new" armour mentioned refers explicitly to the steel backing onto which the composite armour is mounted - the turret shell if you will.

For me this is hardly an issue as i'm still very much a proponent of Dorchester.

Little J
Member
Posts: 549
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Little J » 28 Jan 2019, 19:43

I'll put this here (because I'm not really sure where to put it :lol: )
Not suited to a CR2 upgrade, but looking to the future - a CR2 replacement...


RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2376
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 28 Jan 2019, 20:39

The chat of armour I believe is referring to a new composite. It'd have to. Dorchester is over 20 years old now, and based on a line of armour that has long since been moved past in concepts. The original spec requirements for it put it up to countering KEPs of the types we saw in the early to mid-2000's. KEPs have come a looong way since. The Vacuum-1 APFSDS is over 900mm long, after all, fires at much higer velocities than the old ones used to be with a projected penetration out to just below 1,000 RHAe. That is a 60% improvement over Dorchester's original spec requirements, and actually exceeds LOS on the Challenger's armour. If it exceeds LOS, then there is no way the armour can handle it, since an armour's RHAe resistance is always lower than its LOS.

For example, the Challenger 1 had around 500mm RHAe to KEPs (non-long rod). Challenger 2 was estimated by several sources ahead of Swedish trials (that the Challenger pulled from) to be around about the M1A2's RHAe against KEPs, maybe a bit higher, maybe a bit lower, depending on shell.

The M1A2 is two armour packages behind in the US development, its original matching Challenger 2's oiwn armour development. Since HAP2 it's been quite different.

Dorchester having "nothing said against it" is because no-one talks about it, period. They aren't going to publically talk about it, but it would be very naive to let patriotism carry rather than logic and analysis.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 28 Jan 2019, 22:20

RetroSicotte wrote:It's pipe dream thinking to imagine every upgrade, but if all this was taken up it would mean:

1. The Challenger would gain the most powerful gun in NATO.
2. The Challenger would have the newest turret in NATO, with the newest armour.
3. The Challenger would be one of only two western tanks with completely protected crew compartments from ammo detonations.
4. The Challenger would have the highest rated engine in NATO.
5. The Challenger would be one of only two with APS (since the M1 will get APS before this enters service)
6. The Challenger would be using one of the best APFSDS rounds in the world.
7. The Challenger would finally have the same hunter-killer as everyone else.

As Descartes once said; you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Location: Germany

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Qwerty » 28 Jan 2019, 23:36

mr.fred wrote:As Descartes once said; you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.


FYI: It was Abraham Lincoln

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2376
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 29 Jan 2019, 08:33

mr.fred wrote:As Descartes once said; you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Referring to what, specifically?

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 668
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby mr.fred » 29 Jan 2019, 12:18

RetroSicotte wrote:Referring to what, specifically?

Ignoring the paradox inherent to replying, and aimed more at your source that your summation, the power train upgrade, if it occurs, is separate to the LEP

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2376
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 29 Jan 2019, 12:39

mr.fred wrote:Ignoring the paradox inherent to replying, and aimed more at your source that your summation, the power train upgrade, if it occurs, is separate to the LEP

That would be why I specified that we don't have anything official yet at the very top of the post before extrapolating the "if".

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 Jan 2019, 12:46

RetroSicotte wrote: It is reported that the entire ammunition of this tank will be placed in isolated compartments.


This would make it only the second Western tank in service with such a crucial system, the first being the Abrams. HUGE survivability upgrade.
Agree, and hope so. Earlier sources were talking about the ones 'in turret' only?
RetroSicotte wrote:Leclercs unique supercharger
Another addition that can break. Turbines are thirsty, noisy and have a huge IR signature... but at least they are simple and straightforward.
RetroSicotte wrote:Talk about rags to riches
Now let's go and find those, too, that were junked in the 2010 'dinosaurs' review :D !

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2376
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 29 Jan 2019, 12:53

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Agree, and hope so. Earlier sources were talking about the ones 'in turret' only?

Leclercs unique supercharger
Another addition that can break. Turbines are thirsty, noisy and have a huge IR signature... but at least they are simple and straightforward.[/quote]
Seems to be a bit of back and forth on it. Reporting going both ways.

But what stands out is the turret bustle is huge now. I should try doing an analysis with the M1, since it has a bustle storage of the sort we'd all hope for.

Leclerc hasn't really reported any issues with the supercharger. I've spoken to someone who used to operate on them on Discord, and he was always very complimentary about its mobility and ease of use.

I do wonder if the new Challenger upgrade finally replaces the twin sticks with a wheel.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 Jan 2019, 12:54

RetroSicotte wrote:Challenger 2 was estimated by several sources ahead of Swedish trials (that the Challenger pulled from) to be around about [level with] the M1A2's

+
RetroSicotte wrote:"nothing said against it" is because no-one talks about it, period. They aren't going to publically talk about it


Just re-enforce the point made of "generational" differences, in one of the Swedish trials (earlier ones than what is referred to?) they had their T-80 fire at the S-tank... and the round penetrated - both sides!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 Jan 2019, 12:58

RetroSicotte wrote:what stands out is the turret bustle is huge now. I should try doing an analysis with the M1, since it has a bustle storage of the sort we'd all hope for.


I have not come across a piccie of the two DM rounds side by side - like the one they have posted about the new 130 round (which is huge).
- so may be the sructure now takes more space, may what's inside are longer... may be both?

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2376
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 29 Jan 2019, 13:02

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Just re-enforce the point made of "generational" differences, in one of the Swedish trials (earlier ones than what is referred to?) they had their T-80 fire at the S-tank... and the round penetrated - both sides!

Wasn't it a T-72? Same gun either way I suppose.

The S-Tank would fail against anything using APFSDS really. It relied on steep angles to "bounce" off of otherwise thin armour, but shells of that sort just don't do that any more. They either shatter or go in anyway.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I have not come across a piccie of the two DM rounds side by side - like the one they have posted about the new 130 round (which is huge).
- so may be the sructure now takes more space, may what's inside are longer... may be both?

Almost no difference between DM53 and 63, difference between M829 and DM63 is less known, but I'm pretty certain I could find it.

If its bustle is about the same size as the Abrams one, it could very well imply that yes, it's all turret stowed. Bustles don't tend to be armoured by more than a bit of RHA (certainly no composite, not enough LOS room) so their size wouldn't differ greatly due to internals.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Jan 2019, 13:11

Can someone remind me what is the timeframe for the CR2 CEP.

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2376
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 29 Jan 2019, 15:17

Lord Jim wrote:Can someone remind me what is the timeframe for the CR2 CEP.

As a very rough memory guess, choice of bidder within the next few months, in service by 2025, I think?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 29 Jan 2019, 15:31

RetroSicotte wrote:in service by 2025, I think?


Starting to sound like the heavier and medium bdes will be transformed/ stood up at the same time... makes sense with whole regiments moving between bdes
- IF the procurement plans won't slip

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Jan 2019, 16:25

If everything holds together, and with a little git of tinkering, the Army could actually end up with a AFV fleet fit for purpose for once.
the Army will be well placed to deal with
Challenger 2 CEP
Warrior CEP
Ajax family
Boxer family
JLTV family

The last three if a number of additional variants are purchased or those already planned slightly modified, the Army will be well placed to deal with most foreseeable threat going forward. There are additional capability still needed but some of these at least could be covered by the next Equipment Plan.

As for the CR2 CEP I also really hope the MoD goes for the L55A1 regardless of which proposal is taken up. I really I think the MoD should get both bidders to work together to get the best of both in ne package. It must be tempting to adopt the new gun,with the through life savings its adoption will bring, and the commonality with out allies around the world.

It is also going to be interesting to see which APS the MoD adopts for the CR2 and which other vehicles are fitted with it. I can see Boxer being a priority, but I see the APS being part of the TES kits with most vehicles FFBNW.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Jan 2019, 01:16

Lord Jim wrote:I really I think the MoD should get both bidders to work together to get the best of both in one package.
Is this now likely to become a practical inevitability?

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Ron5 » 31 Jan 2019, 16:33

Poiuytrewq wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:I really I think the MoD should get both bidders to work together to get the best of both in one package.
Is this now likely to become a practical inevitability?


I'd say the most likely outcome is that prick in the Treasury cancelling the project.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 31 Jan 2019, 16:42

Well as mentioned above, Rheinmetall are already in talks with BAe to take over what was their main land manufacturing site which is likely to be the location for Boxer production once everything is signed off and would therefore also be where the work on the CR2 would take place. Whether both bidding groups could work together is up for debate, but my wish would be for the MoD to get as much bang for its buck with the programme. As it stands the Rheinmetall bid is in a different league to that offered by the BAe led group, and I would be surprised if the former's bid included that many items that we options rather than part of their firm bid. The change in power pack is probably one such option, but if the gun was not part of the firm bid, the change in turret would not have been needed.

The Army's AFV re-equipment plans have finally come to the fore with the reappearance of a perceived threat to NATO from Russia. The programmes in place will finally begin to undo the neglect suffered by the Army over the past three decades at least and unless the threat is seen to go away, the programmes will probably be a higher priority than they have been for years, giving them some protect from arbitrary cuts. In the CR2s favour is the fact that it should if done right deliver a lot of capability for relatively little money in the grand scheme of things. Of course a lot is going to depend on the next CSR as to whether the MoD is able to defend its position.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Jan 2019, 17:21

Ron5 wrote:I'd say the most likely outcome is that prick in the Treasury cancelling the project.
I'd say the most likely outcome is the UK electorate cancelling the "prick in the Treasury's" contract before too much longer...

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1476
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Caribbean » 31 Jan 2019, 18:17

Poiuytrewq wrote:I'd say the most likely outcome is the UK electorate cancelling the "prick in the Treasury's" contract before too much longer...

Well, if that happens, we'll get a whole new toolbox ;)
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1463
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Poiuytrewq » 31 Jan 2019, 18:47

Caribbean wrote:
Poiuytrewq wrote:I'd say the most likely outcome is the UK electorate cancelling the "prick in the Treasury's" contract before too much longer...

Well, if that happens, we'll get a whole new toolbox ;)
Made up almost entirely of spanners?

Online
Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1476
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Caribbean » 31 Jan 2019, 21:42

Poiuytrewq wrote:Made up almost entirely of spanners?

:lol: :clap:
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3047
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 03 Feb 2019, 22:13

Looking at some of the latest Leopard 2A6 models in service (Danish) you can see the same "Hunter Killer" sight on the turret roof as we see on Rheinmetall's submission for the CR2 CEP. This appears to be a more advanced version than fitted to he Leopard 2A6s in German Service. It would appear that the new turret Rheinmetall have shown on their CR2 CEP Demonstrator is a CR2 Turret stripped sown and rebuilt with a new armour package, the mush discussed ammo racks in the enlarged turret bustle and the same FCS as the latest Leopard 2 variants. This may mean that by using off the shelf items the cost has been reduces to a level that the whole package as shown, not APS or new engine, could be affordable within the CAP budget. The haggling could then be over these last two items but even the starting package would bring the CR2 back up to the top table of MBTs.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

 

 

cron