Iron Fist, but its an optional extra + £££Ron5 wrote:Good to see an APS. Is it Trophy?
FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
@LandSharkUK
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Most tanks with modern systems are, really.~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:The Black Knight certainly looks err...busy on top, doesn't it?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
What a surprise:
Nicholas Drummond
@nicholadrummond
Rheinmetall proposal for Challenger 2 LEP upgrade has Leopard Evolution turret
Nicholas Drummond
@nicholadrummond
Rheinmetall proposal for Challenger 2 LEP upgrade has Leopard Evolution turret
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Great, so we keep the weakest elements of CR2 and combine the turret of the least armoured western tank all for the sake of a new gun. Ironically the tank crews dont seem to have the same panty twisting as seen here. You would be better going for the 120mm smoothbore unmanned turret.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I don't think the deficiencies that have become plain for all to see (Turkey's forays into the neighbouring country) extend to the turret? When the previous upgrade prgrm hit the rocks, the observers did not think it was the end of the matter:jimthelad wrote:combine the turret of the least armoured western tank all for the sake of a new gun. Ironically the tank crews dont seem to have the same panty twisting as seen here.
" U.K. Ministry of Defence expects the initial
Smoothbore Option Technical Demonstrator Program
(SOTDP) to be complete by mid-2006.
Although the SOTDP failed to secure further develop-
ment and production funding in the 2005 MoD budget,
we expect the MoD will somehow find the funds to
continue the Rh 120/55 ordnance integration, to support
the stated intention of extending the Challenger 2
service life to 2035 "
- how's the armour penetration, btw, as the rest of the world has not stood still?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
More photos here:
Credit to Defence Photograghy
Credit to Defence Photograghy
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Definitely retaining the barbette location for the gunner’s thermals. Odd.
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3243
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Looks like it. But there is also a fixed sight underneath the Commanders Hunter Killer optic.mr.fred wrote:efinitely retaining the barbette location for the gunner’s thermals. Odd.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
That's the Gunner's Primary Sight. Visible light only (day for certain, possibly II as well) since you can see the objective of the sensor through the sight. It's gyrostabilised.Timmymagic wrote:Looks like it. But there is also a fixed sight underneath the Commanders Hunter Killer optic.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Looking at it, despite the angle fixed to the gun, it seemed like a good design. Enough of armour as with the modern tanks, done up like Xmas trees, it seems that you can pretty much blind them with a round of shrapnel (AHEAD in modern terms).Timmymagic wrote:Looks like it. But there is also a fixed sight underneath the Commanders Hunter Killer optic.mr.fred wrote:efinitely retaining the barbette location for the gunner’s thermals. Odd.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3243
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Look at the rear of the turret, more sensors (radar or laser?) with additional smoke dischargers..
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3243
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
And another image of the rear with sensors and additional dischargers/
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
The weakest armoured turret in the west would be the Ariete, then the Leclerc, before you get to the Leopard.jimthelad wrote:Great, so we keep the weakest elements of CR2 and combine the turret of the least armoured western tank all for the sake of a new gun.
Note that I am not inherently disagreeing with you that this is a questionable choice to say the least.
What unmanned turret? The only one even vaguely applicable to the Challenger was the Jordanian one, which was never completed to any operational extent and was hideously awful to the point even Jordan didn't want it.You would be better going for the 120mm smoothbore unmanned turret.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Left [a bit] in the dark by these comments... though "the least protected" was put onto a scale, yes.RetroSicotte wrote:not inherently disagreeing with you that this is a questionable choice to say the least.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I wasnt really including the former 2!!! Besides the standard Leo 2 is very weak in the side and bustle areas. That is why they had to use the applique panels made by KW.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
The reason they can't call it 'Black Knght' http://www.military-today.com/apc/black_knight.htmTimmymagic wrote:And another image of the rear with sensors and additional dischargers/
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Chieftain Blue
Ch1 Silver
Ch2 Platinum, and
Ch1 Silver
Ch2 Platinum, and
Little J wrote:Challenger 2 "Black Edition"
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I was thinking more along the lines of Mercedes AMG, with Clarkson doing a test drive screaming "Power"!!!!
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
What'll be interesting is with increased Russian aggression is whether the Modernizing Defense Program puts increased emphasis on not just the quality but also the quantity of heavy armor. If the latter where would the manpower come from, the light cavalry units?
-
- Member
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
https://www.forces.net/news/challenger- ... rm-warfare
Another report on Chally 2 and an interview with the “Campaign Leader for Challenger 2” from BAE..
Another report on Chally 2 and an interview with the “Campaign Leader for Challenger 2” from BAE..
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1351
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
(Forces TV) 25th September 2018
Britain's manpower has been showcased at the Defence Vehicles Dynamics event in Millbrook - amongst them was the British Army's main battle tank. The Challenger 2 entered service in 1998 and its life is being extended to 2035. The prototype Challenger 2, Mark 2 Demonstrator, nicknamed the 'Black Knight', has been developed within the last year, with the focus on enhancing its sensor systems.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
If the CR2s are updated to something like the "Black Knight", they will remain an effective platform until their OSD, but it remains to be seen whether the programme is sufficiently funded to achieve this.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
An effective platform for COIN and bullying the T-72s of second and third world nations, yes, and at least not being blind any more since 24 hour HK became standard years ago; but there are still massive problems needing solved. Chief among them the gun, and further purchases of modular armour, or even armour upgrades.
Information has started to drop on the composition and intended shell resistances of the vehicle, based on documents uncovered pertaining to the tank's intended specification in the mid-90's. The baseline armour hasn't been upgraded in 20 years (an eternity in tank design, and likely won't have been for 30+ since entry), so it's a worrying set of numbers for a peer-to-peer consideration.
The Challenger's upgrades are aimed predominantly at repeating an Iraq. To operate against someone overmatched against it, really. They're clearly not angling this at rivaling other modern tanks.
Information has started to drop on the composition and intended shell resistances of the vehicle, based on documents uncovered pertaining to the tank's intended specification in the mid-90's. The baseline armour hasn't been upgraded in 20 years (an eternity in tank design, and likely won't have been for 30+ since entry), so it's a worrying set of numbers for a peer-to-peer consideration.
The Challenger's upgrades are aimed predominantly at repeating an Iraq. To operate against someone overmatched against it, really. They're clearly not angling this at rivaling other modern tanks.