So the people on twitter haven't noticed that that it is a modified CR2 turret? There are a lot of tell-tales that it's the British turret under there and not a new build.CameronPerson wrote:Bit more info on the above posted image via twitter
FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
-
- Member
- Posts: 300
- Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Used the existing turret, gutted it, chopped bits off, added lots and went from there. No way would the budget allow a complete new buildmr.fred wrote: There are a lot of tell-tales that it's the British turret under there and not a new build.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1351
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Didn't MOD get bitten by the same idea on WCSP? We'll just chop up the turret and it'll be fine. End result, ended up buying all new turrets.CameronPerson wrote:Used the existing turret, gutted it, chopped bits off, added lots and went from there. No way would the budget allow a complete new buildmr.fred wrote: There are a lot of tell-tales that it's the British turret under there and not a new build.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Couple of late posts...
Challenger 2 (Mk2.../3?) firing the L55A1:
New turret, first digital one in Europe for 20 years:
Challenger 2 (Mk2.../3?) firing the L55A1:
New turret, first digital one in Europe for 20 years:
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
They tried it with subs Thyssen(Krupp) and had to do a police raid onto the premises to make sure that the IP/ designs stayed in Sweden (after first having been pre-empted fro participating in the ozzie subs competition)MikeKiloPapa wrote:.everything to avoid coming under kraut influence......because the Swedes know all to well what happens when under german ownership!
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)
Picked this one up from below the turret ring site: "the improved version of the Leopard 2's L55 smoothbore gun - the L55A1 - is supposed to be ready for series production in 2018 according to Rheinmetall. Together with new ammunition, the L55A1 is claimed to provide about 20% more performance than the current version.
- This matches the dates for the finished Leopard 2A7V development and would explain how the lethality can be increased despite the new 130 mm L51 gun still being in development."
That sounds like it, in turn, has been picked up from the manufacturer's info and does not tie the gun performance in a definitive way together with the alternative rounds: DM 63 and DM 53 A1 (the latter is an upgraded version of the DM 53)
- This matches the dates for the finished Leopard 2A7V development and would explain how the lethality can be increased despite the new 130 mm L51 gun still being in development."
That sounds like it, in turn, has been picked up from the manufacturer's info and does not tie the gun performance in a definitive way together with the alternative rounds: DM 63 and DM 53 A1 (the latter is an upgraded version of the DM 53)
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)
All the comments above only confirm in my mind that the Rheinmetall offer is far superior to the BAe one. Regarding German ownership, the Swedes may have got burnt regarding the Submarines, but the German company involved has been taken to task on other issues as well and excluded form the next Frigate competition if I remember rightly. But this seems to be the exception to the rule, and I personally would rather work with Rheinmetall than BAe on the CR2 programme, with this also dovetailing into the Boxer programme or visa versa. It is the replacement gun that is the game changer for me, and the biggest thing against the BAe offer. If it is also possible to offer new build turret for export, this could also be an alternative to the current upgrade path Rheinmetall are offering to existing Leo2 customers. All in all this offer seems to open more possibilities than the BAe one in so many ways.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Does the upgrade package include a new Engine pack as well. This design does look the business and hope it wins any competition.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Not this design, but apparently it may get the same 1500HP engine and gearbox as the Leopard 2A7 when a separate competition to replace the drivetrain is started.bobp wrote:Does the upgrade package include a new Engine pack as well. This design does look the business and hope it wins any competition.
Rheinmetall have confirmed the turret will contain a new armour fit as well. Add on APS and the Challenger is suddenly looking very good again!
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Watching a few other sites that comment on the CR2 LEP, it has been discussed that with BAe having its fingers in both proposals, the end result could be a hybrid of both, for example the Rheinmetall turrets and gun with some of the new electronics shown on the Black Knight and even some of the proposals put forward in the Army's Streetfighter experiment. IF this is the case the CR2 will regain its place at the top tier of MBTs.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I thought it was a delivery project (for 22 kits). Would be interesting to know if that delivery was only partial and some 'good ideas' were kept for laterLord Jim wrote:proposals put forward in the Army's Streetfighter experiment
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)
The experiment I was referring to was the one done in house where they gave the squaddies a bag of money and a CR2 and told them to go crazy, ending up with ladders attached to the side skirts, cameras everywhere and so on. The programme you are thinking of was the Urban Warfare one where they produced a couple of dozen sets for the CR2 in Iraq or maybe later. Either way I am starting to feel more optimistic regarding where the GR2 is heading as long as the funding remains in place.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I fear you may have unrealistic expectations on what can be done within the budget.Lord Jim wrote:Watching a few other sites that comment on the CR2 LEP, it has been discussed that with BAe having its fingers in both proposals, the end result could be a hybrid of both, for example the Rheinmetall turrets and gun with some of the new electronics shown on the Black Knight and even some of the proposals put forward in the Army's Streetfighter experiment. IF this is the case the CR2 will regain its place at the top tier of MBTs.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1351
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Or what is contractually agreeable between all stakeholders.Ron5 wrote:I fear you may have unrealistic expectations on what can be done within the budget.Lord Jim wrote:Watching a few other sites that comment on the CR2 LEP, it has been discussed that with BAe having its fingers in both proposals, the end result could be a hybrid of both, for example the Rheinmetall turrets and gun with some of the new electronics shown on the Black Knight and even some of the proposals put forward in the Army's Streetfighter experiment. IF this is the case the CR2 will regain its place at the top tier of MBTs.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Against my better judgement I will remain a "Glass half full" on this subject. Rheinmetall will have developed their proposal against the MoD's list of requirements and obviously think they can install the new gun within the programmes budget. Whilst the BAe submission deals with the issues of obsolete systems it retains the original gun and the problems that go with it moving forward. Spending money to extend the life of a tank which is unable to carry out its primary function, killing other tanks, is not a logical way to proceed. This is critical as we are unlikely to deploy out heavy formations unless we expect to fight contemporary opponent. against lesser opposition we will probably rely on light AFVs and infantry ATGWs together with other assets such as the Apache Guardians and CAS.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Not necessarily. It’s more likely they’ve offered it on top of the MoD’s list of requirements, in the same way that BAE has offered APS. If the MoD likes what they see and can stump up the extra cash, then they can have it. Otherwise they can’t.Lord Jim wrote:Against my better judgement I will remain a "Glass half full" on this subject. Rheinmetall will have developed their proposal against the MoD's list of requirements and obviously think they can install the new gun within the programmes budget.
Primary role of tanks is killing other tanks? Nonsense. The primary role of tanks is providing protected, mobile firepower. In this role, they are the most likely to come into contact with enemy tanks doing the same thing, so being able to kill your likely adversary is advisable, but it’s not their primary role.
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Drummond and others have talked about testing with, and potential operational use of the, DM53 round.
Janes however seems to suggest that the intended round for the LEP standard Challenger would be the newer, more capable DM63 instead: https://www.janes.com/article/85918/iav ... nger-2-lep
Janes however seems to suggest that the intended round for the LEP standard Challenger would be the newer, more capable DM63 instead: https://www.janes.com/article/85918/iav ... nger-2-lep
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
DTR mag and Janes are pointing in the same direction... the thing is that the the older round also has got a newer version, too, so never sure without a specific mention, about which one "is coming to town".ArmChairCivvy wrote:Together with new ammunition, the L55A1 is claimed to provide about 20% more performance than the current version.
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)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Worth recalling that the DM53 and DM63 are very similar, the DM63 being essentially a reworked DM53 to perform more consistently, rather than as an explicitly new round. They are often mistaken and used as overlapping terms in some outlets and by some people (as inaccurate as that is).
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
T the above to muddy the waters even furtherArmChairCivvy wrote: tie the gun performance in a definitive way together with the alternative rounds: DM 63 and DM 53 A1 (the latter is an upgraded version of the DM 53)
... however, the manufacturer's statement that the best of the three, tested with the new version of the gun yielded a 20% improvement, is pretty clear
- if going to 130 mm is expected to give 50% (over the same benchmark), then that is pretty impressive
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)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I do remain doubtful that we'll see the 130mm unless something significantly changes in the status quo. It requires an enormous shift and a large expenditure away from the common market of ammunition. It was a response to the T-14, and now the T-14 looks increasingly unlikely to really be a thing in the way we all thought it would be.
That said, France has recently been testing their 140mm again. Not to actually consider using, but to gain feedback on larger guns in general, with aim to the 130mm, so who knows, maybe they'll do a CT40 and push ahead with a combined buy to try and help support a new ammo type.
That said, France has recently been testing their 140mm again. Not to actually consider using, but to gain feedback on larger guns in general, with aim to the 130mm, so who knows, maybe they'll do a CT40 and push ahead with a combined buy to try and help support a new ammo type.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Only if they can ensure that we'll foot part of the development and be first user, thus reducing the risks for themRetroSicotte wrote:That said, France has recently been testing their 140mm again. Not to actually consider using, but to gain feedback on larger guns in general, with aim to the 130mm, so who knows, maybe they'll do a CT40 and push ahead with a combined buy to try and help support a new ammo type.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
'True caseless' has turned out to be difficult with rifles (carried by grunts), but may be not so inside a vehicle... with an autoloader?RetroSicotte wrote:maybe they'll do a CT40
- a 'conventional' one-piece 130mm round is already quite a challenge, not to mention a 140
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)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Ah, not quite what I meant. I just was meaning in the sense that they were happy to go with a non-standard round among a smaller group of nations, rather than sticking to the (mostly US based) mass produced standards.ArmChairCivvy wrote:'True caseless' has turned out to be difficult with rifles (carried by grunts), but may be not so inside a vehicle... with an autoloader?
- a 'conventional' one-piece 130mm round is already quite a challenge, not to mention a 140
Just meaning method of adoption away from the "norm", not using a similar round technology.