UK Defence Forum

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.

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

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)?

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?

The Tank Museum, Bovington, Dorset.
Website: http://www.tankmuseum.org/home
Twitter: https://twitter.com/TankMuseum
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/tankmuseum
Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChl-XK ... VsnbOfpcqw

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Meet the Challenger 2 Black Night being show cased as BAEs Demonstrator for LEP
https://www.janes.com/article/83009/bae ... monstrator

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/

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?

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

Looks like Iron Fist.

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

Looks like the new Leonardo sensor is going in to replace the TICM2 modules in the TOGS, unless they are modifying the PASEO. While off the shelf provides cost benefits, the resolution of the Leonardo imager is much greater than the published Sagem line up.

Looks like it’s got the laser warning system (Elbit E-LAWS) that has been shown on Ajax, alongside what I assume are radars for the HK-DAS.

Wonder if Rheinmetall's offering will break cover soon then? The Black Knight certainly looks err...busy on top, doesn't it?

I thought that part of the upgrade plans were to replace the barel with a smooth bore is this still going ahead ?

Jake1992 wrote:that part of the upgrade plans

Don't think it was part of the request that the two that were down-selected responded to, BUT:
- Rheinmetall interestingly added that they thought it was possible

Which made me think that they were thinking of proposing a whole new turret (?)
- I seem to remember the round during which the smoothbore was trialed concluded that one-piece rounds would require a new turret
- and just to come to that conclusion (trying it out within the existing turret) cost an arm and a leg

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:Wonder if Rheinmetall's offering will break cover soon then? The Black Knight certainly looks err...busy on top, doesn't it?

I'd be surprised if it's not at DVD this week.