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.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1791
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Jun 2018, 20:19

I bow to your technical superiority, I was simply and badly trying to say that optics are getting better and better as technology moves forward and that being able to see clearly to identify a target is vital and so you want the best magnification and resolution you can get. So the more modern your optics the better. So with modern digitally enhanced sights tank crews can see far more clearly what they are looking/aiming at so mistakes are rarer. So you need but good magnification and resolution which some of the older sights has issues with losing the quality of the latter as the former increased. Now it appears the latter is the same quality regardless of the magnification used which makes life easier for crews and the vehicle more effective.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 24 Jun 2018, 21:44

Equally, my point was that these numbers (magnification, resolution) cannot be taken in isolation. It would be entirely possible to pick a system with vastly superior numbers and find that it is entirely inferior to a system with what are, on the face of it, ‘worse’ numbers.

I have a pair of 10-40x binoculars, but i’ll pick up my 8 or 10x fixed binoculars nine times our of ten because the quality of the optics is better. In terms of looking at far objects, my cheap 10x binoculars are equal to or better than my mildly expensive 30x digital camera (and that with a 2x digital zoom) because my eyesight can resolve smaller objects

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Jun 2018, 14:07

This
"The EMBT has been developed by KNDS and combines a Leopard 2 chassis with a Leclerc 120mm turret" from Eurosatory is of no direct consequence, but
- have not seen any serious comments
- could it be/ have been just a precursor to the Ch2 LEP proposal coming out with a totally new turret? To lessen the shock :)

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2041
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 27 Jun 2018, 15:12

mr.fred wrote:Equally, my point was that these numbers (magnification, resolution) cannot be taken in isolation. It would be entirely possible to pick a system with vastly superior numbers and find that it is entirely inferior to a system with what are, on the face of it, ‘worse’ numbers.

I have a pair of 10-40x binoculars, but i’ll pick up my 8 or 10x fixed binoculars nine times our of ten because the quality of the optics is better. In terms of looking at far objects, my cheap 10x binoculars are equal to or better than my mildly expensive 30x digital camera (and that with a 2x digital zoom) because my eyesight can resolve smaller objects

Using random binoculars to compare to technology on the level of the SEPs systems is a huge oversimplification.

Talk to the users, I've spoken to two M1 crewman on the development while following it (via my Polish contact), and both remark that is is another level for acquirement and accuracy. A step change in how they conduct hunter-killer. The x50 in particular is a unique capability not duplicated on any other vehicle in service at this moment, due to its high resolution magnification, and that it permits hugely improved accuracy. Being able to lase and fire at something that occupies a larger quantity of the screen, and has an equivalently adjusted pan rate sensitivity is an enormous, enormous advantage for precision targeting in the latest SEP variants.

Of course, the largest advantage being on identification at range.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 27 Jun 2018, 19:13

RetroSicotte wrote:Using random binoculars to compare to technology on the level of the SEPs systems is a huge oversimplification.

But I wasn’t comparing my random binoculars to the fire control on the Abrams. I was comparing my random binoculars (with 10x magnification) with my random camera (with what is allegedly a 30x optical magnification, with a 2x zoom) to illustrate the folly in comparing digital imagery to direct optical channels on a magnification factor basis. You shouldn’t even compare direct optical channels purely on a magnification factor basis, because there are so many other interacting and important factors.
RetroSicotte wrote:Talk to the users,

I find scientific analysis better, myself. I’ve been told too many urban myths to think otherwise.
x4 digital zoom is unusual, I’ll grant you - most systems only have x2*, usually because the pixelated image doesn’t give any advantage. If the Abrams sights are much higher resolution, that might make a difference. I don’t know what the 2008 SEPv2 sights are in terms of resolution, but I’d be surprised if they are that much above the state of the art at that time.
By the description, if true, the strength of the system is the pan rate and control algorithms rather than a rather deceptive magnification factor.


* multipliers are appropriate for digital zoom, since they are a simple factor on the sight picture

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2041
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 27 Jun 2018, 20:53

The sights are definitely of a very high resolution, they are the newest ones in the western world by a significant time gap.

Remember that the Leopard's ones are still ultimately based on tweaking older versions, or at best early 2000s. The US ones are over a decade newer than even that and freshly made from new technology.

I find having someone who actually uses the thing as a better source myself, as there's always far more to go in these things than just comparing a simple number.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 27 Jun 2018, 22:43

RetroSicotte wrote:Remember that the Leopard's ones are still ultimately based on tweaking older versions, or at best early 2000s. The US ones are over a decade newer than even that and freshly made from new technology.

The Leo 2A7 sight "tweaking" is based on replacing obsolescent sensors with new ones. Specs are a devil to track down, but the latest Peri R17s, as fitted to modern Leopards, apparently have a 768x576 pixel sensor*. Not the latest and greatest, but state of the art going back 5-10 years. It has a x2 digital zoom, on top of three fields of view, which one could, over simplistically, call 1x, 3x and 8x. If you really wanted to be over simplistic, you could then factor the digital zoom in for 16x. More usefully, that would be fields of view of 400m, 133m, 50m and "25m" at 1km.
Wiki page for the EMES-15 (leopard's sight) lists 4x and 12x for the thermal image, but that doesn't indicate fields of view.

RetroSicotte wrote:I find having someone who actually uses the thing as a better source myself

I find that you have to take first hand user accounts with a pinch of salt, and increasing amounts of seasoning as degrees of separation increase. Going back over your report, the presence of the WBG-X thermal imager (if true) is a surprise, given that it went obsolete (as in no longer supported) three years ago.
If we were to take the report as gospel, It's the resolution and quality of sensors and displays that will make the difference, more so than the artificially inflated "zoom"

RetroSicotte wrote:as there's always far more to go in these things than just comparing a simple number.

I entirely agree. In fact, that is the point I'm trying to make.

*Although other sources suggest that this resolution is for the OPHELIOS previous generation imager

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8001
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Jun 2018, 02:38

Very useful discussion, I wonder how it all compares with the sensor and display resolution from the factory that "our" Thales kindly built in Belorussia and which has since supplied thousands of Russian tanks (incl. some for export, like to India)?

BV Buster
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 30 Jun 2018, 20:13
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby BV Buster » 30 Jun 2018, 21:34

Greetings tank perverts.

You are all bang on about the CR2s main armament, its performance is shocking and not just in a top trumps numbers kind of way but in a real life tank killing way. Its all about penetrator length and unfortunately we are lacking in that department (story of my life).

The engine is terrible and the gear box is worse, the suspension on the other hand is very good, massively noticeable when going cross country, it was the first thing I noticed when on a cabby in a Leo.
Anyone off to tankfest?

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 4659
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
Location: England

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby SKB » 30 Jun 2018, 21:42


RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2041
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby RetroSicotte » 30 Jun 2018, 21:52

BV Buster wrote:The engine is terrible and the gear box is worse, the suspension on the other hand is very good, massively noticeable when going cross country, it was the first thing I noticed when on a cabby in a Leo.
Anyone off to tankfest?

Wouldn't say the engine was "terrible", it is very reliable, has good mileage, and can easily be repaired and replaced. Thats a lot right there to help an engine go down well. It'll still move the tank at "enough" speed.

It is, of course, one of the weaker available to NATO in mobility, but it doesn't necessarily mean its terrible. An upgrade would be lovely.

I was intending going to Tankfest at last this year (been trying for 3-4 years now) but always that unfortunate thing called "life" getting in the way!

BV Buster
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 30 Jun 2018, 20:13
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby BV Buster » 30 Jun 2018, 22:21

The engine if used daily and looked after is reliable but not when it has been sat for a while, it’s so under powered especially with all the TES kit on. Flat out across country I didn’t notice much difference between Leo, M1 or CR2, just the ride was better in CR2, you could hit bigger bumps and not have to slow down as much.

The most important part is the acceleration, moving between fire positions, jockeying ect is a lot slower in Chally, Leo is properly fast, M1 took a while getting going but was still faster than CR2.


I was intending going to Tankfest at last this year (been trying for 3-4 years now) but always that unfortunate thing called "life" getting in the way!


How bloody dare it! I'm taking Mrs BV for a romantic day out away from the kids.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 30 Jun 2018, 22:22

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Very useful discussion, I wonder how it all compares with the sensor and display resolution from the factory that "our" Thales kindly built in Belorussia and which has since supplied thousands of Russian tanks (incl. some for export, like to India)?


I don’t know about displays, but if memory serves the sensor would be better than the WBG-X*, about on a par with the Ophelios and not as good as the Attica. Although that is on a resolution basis, so assuming no difference between optics, stabilisation, sensitivity etc, which could make more difference than a single number comparison.

* at a guess, the WBG-X will be a scanning array at about half to standard definition, while the Ophelios and Attica are staring arrays of increasing resolution.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby mr.fred » 30 Jun 2018, 22:24

BV Buster wrote:The engine if used daily and looked after is reliable but not when it has been sat for a while
.

That is true of all internal combustion engines though.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 698
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 30 Jun 2018, 22:28

BV Buster wrote:The engine if used daily and looked after is reliable but not when it has been sat for a while, it’s so under powered especially with all the TES kit on. Flat out across country I didn’t notice much difference between Leo, M1 or CR2, just the ride was better in CR2, you could hit bigger bumps and not have to slow down as much.

The most important part is the acceleration, moving between fire positions, jockeying ect is a lot slower in Chally, Leo is properly fast, M1 took a while getting going but was still faster than CR2.


Well it already seems you have some experience with the Challenger 2! :D

I'd heard it mentioned a while back on another forum (i believe he was a tanker himself IIRC) that it wasn't engine itself that was necessarily the weak point in terms of power, but the transmission?

BV Buster
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: 30 Jun 2018, 20:13
Location: United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Postby BV Buster » 01 Jul 2018, 09:03

That is true of all internal combustion engines though.


Too true, and not many vehicles get max revved everywhere they go ether.


I'd heard it mentioned a while back on another forum (i believe he was a tanker himself IIRC) that it wasn't engine itself that was necessarily the weak point in terms of power, but the transmission?


Although driving inst my thing, I try to keep away from the oily bottom half as much as I can, I have heard tons of power is lost in the transmission.

I will be interesting to see what comes out of the project, if we just change some of the electronics and sights then there is no point, she really need a good makeover to be competitive.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby mr.fred » 30 Aug 2018, 21:38

https://www.baesystems.com/en/download- ... 861920.pdf
If you skip down to page 11, there is some interesting information on the Challenger 2 upgrade.

And the relevant bit from Leonardo:
http://www.leonardocompany.com/en/-/lau ... r-detector

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby mr.fred » 01 Sep 2018, 10:52

It will be interesting to see where the super hawk detector is used. At the simplest level, it could be used to replace the TICM 2 in the TOGS over the gun barrel, which would be an uplift in capability, but not conducive to all weather Hunter-killer operations. The involvement with Safran in the team could mean that they are looking at incorporating the Leonardo sensor into the Sagem (as-was) gunners and commanders sights, which would provide thermal hunter-killer capability (with some very capable sensors at that)

GD is involved for the integration of vetronics/ battle management and factory facilities. QinetiQ are providing modelling support, according to the press releases.
Moog do motion control, so replacement of the turret drives can be inferred, although Safran do that too, as well as fire control.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 01 Sep 2018, 16:28

I don't think the Challenger upgrade competition has been decided yet so a bit premature to be talking as if Bae had won.

Would be nice though.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 543
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby mr.fred » 01 Sep 2018, 16:44

Ron5 wrote:I don't think the Challenger upgrade competition has been decided yet so a bit premature to be talking as if Bae had won.

Who was?

What both BAE and RLS have been up to is making prototypes of their solution to the upgrade programme. So the BAE upgrade will have been applied to one vehicle. I believe they plan to display it at the DVD event in mid September. I don’t know what RLS have been up to with theirs.

Would be nice though.

Why?
RLS have a shot too.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 01 Sep 2018, 19:43

Sorry I must have misread your comment. I thought you were saying Bae had won.

Which is good news if you like British companies winning British competitions.

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 97
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Zealot » 17 Sep 2018, 15:43

Meet the Challenger 2 Black Night being show cased as BAEs Demonstrator for LEP

p1731907_main.jpg


https://www.janes.com/article/83009/bae ... monstrator
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

rjhancock
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 01 Sep 2016, 08:17
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby rjhancock » 17 Sep 2018, 17:17

The version shown in Shepard Media is slightly different. The sight immediately above the gun mantlet has been completely removed.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... llanger-2/

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3251
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 17 Sep 2018, 17:30

rjhancock wrote:The version shown in Shepard Media is slightly different. The sight immediately above the gun mantlet has been completely removed.

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/land ... llanger-2/


Optical illusion.

Good to see an APS. Is it Trophy?

Timmymagic
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Timmymagic » 17 Sep 2018, 18:30

Ron5 wrote: to see an APS. Is it Trophy?


Looks like Iron Fist.

Which given BAE's trials with it on CV90 makes sense.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests