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.
RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2335
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby RetroSicotte » 22 Jan 2019, 15:43

MikeKiloPapa wrote:Yes its does. BAE UK still control the purse strings and get the final say on development of new vehicles and systems. A fact that has hamstrung and driven the Swedes crazy multiple times at least since the introduction of the CV90 MKIII .

But not what Rheinmetal got. This is a different thing entirely to BAE in Sweden, Rheinmetal/BAE in the UK has no say over it, only the "core" BAE.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Location: Denmark

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

Postby MikeKiloPapa » 22 Jan 2019, 16:17

RetroSicotte wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.


e 5 mln a piece vs. our £700 mln divided by X ( the MoD being very coy about what "X" will be)

That 5 mil apiece is only the tip of the iceberg for them, unfortunately. They've had to pay a lot more to constantly fix problems related to their fleet being made up of "whatevers" from the old A4 variations.

It's been a complete mess.


Ahh...you've been listening to Damian again i see :roll: ..(or Sturgeons House forum....they are equally bad!).....isnt it funny that the Poles seemingly had/has all these problems with their A4s yet when you actually talk to polish tankers they cant recognize any of these issues. And why havent we heard anything about these seemingly "YUUUGE" problems from all the other users of the A4 model, Finland, Sweden(STRV121-no longer in use), Spain, Chile etc..?
I'll also note that when we (DK) bought our first batch of 51 A4s in 1998, they were from 6 different production batces(from 81'-85'), yet we encountered none of these issues before we had them upgraded to A5DK standard.....

Yes there are slight differences and variations between the various production lots......but in 90% of the cases the parts are the same.
For example, the A4 had three separate armour models
,
Allegedly!.....that is if you believe all the so called "leaked" documents on the Leo2 that very conveniently popped up recently :lol: .....i dont :roll:
two separate hull models

No such thing......that hull is the same in all models, save for the placement of the return rollers, which changed once in the pre A4 versions.....meaning there are 2 configurations, but with the same rollers, track and everything so it has no impact on maintenance or operation whatsoever.
three separate transmission layouts (despite having the same one!),

There is a grain of truth to this, but it isnt really the layout that differs but only the design of the internal disc brakes (used at speeds <20mph) which became stronger in newer transmissions......was changed again in some A5 and A6 models (Leo2A5DK, Strv122, and Leopardo 2E, Leo 2A6HEL)....none of which has much impact on operations.

countless variations in internal systems from major to minor.


This is complete hyperbole from a moron (damian)who doesnt have any actual experience on the Leopard 2 or any tank for that matter and who gets 99% of his information from 2nd or 3rd hand sources or the internet :roll: ......whatever variations exist is at worst minor and inconsequential.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Location: Denmark

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

Postby MikeKiloPapa » 22 Jan 2019, 16:24

RetroSicotte wrote:There is zero worth getting the ones before the 2A5, their base hull is riddled with huge errors that the 2A5 (partially) fixed


And what "huge errors" would that be, i wonder? Also like to know what was only partially fixed.


and are a massive mishmash of minor variations that have cost the Poles as much as the Challenger upgrade program alone just to try and fix to bring up to a certain standard.


No offence , but i'd take what the poles have to say with a truck load of salt!.....especially knowing the likely source.

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Location: Denmark

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

Postby MikeKiloPapa » 22 Jan 2019, 16:33

RetroSicotte wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote:Yes its does. BAE UK still control the purse strings and get the final say on development of new vehicles and systems. A fact that has hamstrung and driven the Swedes crazy multiple times at least since the introduction of the CV90 MKIII .

But not what Rheinmetal got. This is a different thing entirely to BAE in Sweden, Rheinmetal/BAE in the UK has no say over it, only the "core" BAE.

Maybe.....for now at least......However having thrown their lot in with Rheinmetall and OCCAR/ARTEC, BAE UK have no interest in protecting their Swedish subsidiary and the germans are hell bent on gaining consolidation and complete dominance in the european land defence business. If i were head of Hägglunds i would be calling SAAB right about now.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 22 Jan 2019, 19:46

Well as far as I am concerned the Rheinmetall version is a winner and beats the BAe offering hands down. It seems to solve the issues with obsolete electronics and FCS whilst also addressing the issues with the Rifled 120mm. If the turret is built in the UK as well it will only not win if the MoD is directed to pursue the BAe option by the Politicians. Saying that BAe isn't exactly the MoD's favourite AFV manufacturer.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby mr.fred » 22 Jan 2019, 20:37

CameronPerson wrote:Bit more info on the above posted image via twitter

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
Member
Posts: 291
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby CameronPerson » 22 Jan 2019, 21:23

mr.fred wrote: There are a lot of tell-tales that it's the British turret under there and not a new build.


Used the existing turret, gutted it, chopped bits off, added lots and went from there. No way would the budget allow a complete new build

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Postby RunningStrong » 22 Jan 2019, 22:51

CameronPerson wrote:
mr.fred wrote: There are a lot of tell-tales that it's the British turret under there and not a new build.


Used the existing turret, gutted it, chopped bits off, added lots and went from there. No way would the budget allow a complete new build

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.

User avatar
-Eddie-
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:59
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby -Eddie- » 23 Jan 2019, 01:14

Couple of late posts...

Challenger 2 (Mk2.../3?) firing the L55A1:



New turret, first digital one in Europe for 20 years:


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 » 23 Jan 2019, 05:58

MikeKiloPapa wrote:.everything to avoid coming under kraut influence......because the Swedes know all to well what happens when under german ownership!

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)

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 » 23 Jan 2019, 07:01

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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Jan 2019, 17:32

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.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1576
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby bobp » 23 Jan 2019, 21:01

Does the upgrade package include a new Engine pack as well. This design does look the business and hope it wins any competition.

User avatar
-Eddie-
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:59
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby -Eddie- » 23 Jan 2019, 23:04

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.

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.

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!

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Jan 2019, 23:34

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.

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 » 24 Jan 2019, 02:35

Lord Jim wrote:proposals put forward in the Army's Streetfighter experiment


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 later

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Jan 2019, 04:57

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.

Online
Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3486
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

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

Postby Ron5 » 24 Jan 2019, 17:15

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.


I fear you may have unrealistic expectations on what can be done within the budget.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 198
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Postby RunningStrong » 24 Jan 2019, 17:31

Ron5 wrote:
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.


I fear you may have unrealistic expectations on what can be done within the budget.

Or what is contractually agreeable between all stakeholders.

User avatar
-Eddie-
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:59
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby -Eddie- » 24 Jan 2019, 18:22

Further info, looks promising;



Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 24 Jan 2019, 18:56

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.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 640
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby mr.fred » 24 Jan 2019, 20:31

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.


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.


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.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 24 Jan 2019, 21:28

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

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 » 25 Jan 2019, 02:09

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Together with new ammunition, the L55A1 is claimed to provide about 20% more performance than the current version.

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".

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2335
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby RetroSicotte » 25 Jan 2019, 08:13

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).


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests