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: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I think this shows the core strength of the British Army, the men and women who serve and seem to be able to get the job done even with kit that isn't what it could be. Well done to them all.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Glad to finally see confirmation from a more official source.

Well done to the fitness of those involved. I've seen some details of the obstacle course, and it looked pretty monstrous carrying 120mm rounds around it.

As I hear, the Hussars came first in it too.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Cooper »

I told you they finished 4th.

Sorry that you didn't want to believe me or BFTV.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote:it looked pretty monstrous carrying 120mm rounds around it.
Put it/ them in the back of a Stalwart, and flatten the course :D Why did we ever retire them (as resupply that can keep up) :(
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)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

Cooper wrote:I told you they finished 4th.

Sorry that you didn't want to believe me or BFTV.
I rarely believe anything without a source, to be clear.

And for the fact of the matter, the moment you posted, I took that post to those in the know with tanks and reported it to them as "Britain positioned 4th, guy on a forum I help run let me know third hand, waiting to get a source for confirmation." So don't go on the whole me just passing you over bit.

Then when a separate second hand source turned up, that took precedence, as it was an actual source containing specific details from somewhere that has contained accurate data in previous years.

Now, when a second source emerges from a 1st hand perspective from the QRH, that takes precedence.

It's not about ego, 'wanting' or who is 'right'. It's about basic fact checking when hearing something, and updating the current knowledge based on the information available.

These days, especially in defence reporting, such a thing is not only advised, but I find to be mandatory.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by whitelancer »

It would be interesting to see the scores for each of the different challenges. Surprised their is not an official website where they are published.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Surprised this has been missed, but it did come in amongst a flurry of other news.
http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/3615 ... right.html

It would be interesting to see what they’ve done with ammunition stowage.

Also, I think I should address the M1A2 FCS description from earlier: the 25x and 50x zoom on the thermals will be digital zoom, not optical. It’s taking the central section of the display and expanding it to fill the screen. It can be inherent to the sight or can be applied by the display (or approximated by moving your head closer to the screen)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

So, first deliveries in 2025?
" In early 2019, the UK MoD will select the recipient of the program’s DMI and Series Phases, which are expected to run through 2024."
- or, what exactly is a Series Phase?
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Series production, perhaps? With DMI being Design, Manufacture and.... I-something?

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

mr.fred wrote:Surprised this has been missed, but it did come in amongst a flurry of other news.
http://www.monch.com/mpg/news/land/3615 ... right.html

It would be interesting to see what they’ve done with ammunition stowage.
Extremely interesting, an excellent find, Mr.fred.
Under the contract, Curtiss-Wright’s Drive Technology business unit, located in Neuhausen am Rheinfall, Switzerland, will provide a prototype of its state-of-the-art Turret Drive Servo System (TDSS) for use with Rheinmetall’s 120mm smooth bore gun.
I think we can safely say then, that team Rheinmetall appear to be offering their 120mm L55 as a cornerstone of their bid.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

mr.fred wrote:Also, I think I should address the M1A2 FCS description from earlier: the 25x and 50x zoom on the thermals will be digital zoom, not optical. It’s taking the central section of the display and expanding it to fill the screen. It can be inherent to the sight or can be applied by the display (or approximated by moving your head closer to the screen)
There is a HUGE difference in operational clarity, identification and use with a x50 FLIR. It's digital zoom, but it is not much different from optical quality, due to the new sight system's resolution.

Thinking that its just the same as wedging ones eyeball to the screen is a gross oversimplification and underrating of the capability and technology. The US Army didn't make it one of their most important and expensive upgrades for no reason.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

A digital zoom can only match an optical zoom if:
1) the display is unable to display the full resolution of the imaging array.
2) the optical zoom at high magnification is very poor.

Other than those two conditions being true, moving your head closer to the displayis a pretty accurate analogy.

Now the proposed upgrade for the Abrams (which, last I checked, was under development not implemented) did include a higher definition sensor and display, which would be desirable and advantageous, but far from a “quantum leap” as it would only make a difference to the DRI ranges. If the targets are already within Identification range then it won’t make tinkers cuss worth of difference.

As I see it, the two competing companies represent a low risk/low reward and a high risk/high reward approach to the upgrade.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

mr.fred wrote:A digital zoom can only match an optical zoom if:
That is not what I said. I said that it not much different, owing to the increased resolution on the FLIR from the SEPv2 upgrade, which has been around for a while. The new one is the SEPv3, which features the additional power generation for the next upgrade expected in the SEPv4.
Other than those two conditions being true, moving your head closer to the displayis a pretty accurate analogy.
If you could just push your eye closer to the screen to get the same results as a purpose designed x50 FLIR, then they wouldn't have made it.

The ability to identify people at vastly greater rangers through that can never be underestimated. Especially since every single sight they have is boresighted now, it's a universal sighting system tied into every function of the tank. As per Abrams tanker testimony, they have the same level of resolotution accuracy at x50 as the standard x13. (ie - If a terrain feature filled the screen on x13, and they could hit exactly what they wanted, they currently feel they can do exactly the same using the x50 with the same equivilent 'view' on their sights.

As an advantage of easily laying shot on target, that is monumentally advantageous.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

SEP v3 also includes sight upgrades, so the current ones can’t be that amazing.

Digital zoom is a fairly common thing, despite its limitations, so it may bring advantages (actually bringing your head closer might not be possible with some displays) but that doesn’t mean it actually provides any more detail.

Having a more magnified view of a target doesn’t help accuracy. If two different magnifications can both see the target in sufficient detail to lay the gun on it then the higher magnification doesn’t gain an advantage.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:If two different magnifications can both see the target in sufficient detail to lay the gun on it then the higher magnification doesn’t gain an advantage.
... except knowing whether to fire or not. I am leaving aside these BMSs that of course are good for close coordination, but never fail-safe for Blue-on-blue (esp. if we are talking about alliances fielding the forces)
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: ... except knowing whether to fire or not.
That wouldn’t apply to the tank competition. Also if you are both within identification range of both, the higher magnification yields no advantage, and the effect of digital zoom does not necessarily improve your identification range.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

Competitions are just that, competitions or in other words team building games. What matters is how a platform handles in combat, Challenger 1 being the classic example. As for magnification and resolution, being a regular shooter I usually stick to x8 mag but if I want to check exactly where I am hitting I move the scope to x24 then back to x8 to carry on. Being able to clearly see a possible target is vital these days, yes you might see a possible target and be able to shoot it on x13 but if you cannot be sure it is a legitimate target current and future ROE will probably mean you cannot fire. Having the ability to do so using higher mag, even if only on the commander's site is going to be essential and the higher the resolution the better chance he or she will have of correctly identifying the target.

Another go at this, older sights lose resolution with magnification even true magnification has this problem. Modern digital sights are able to solve this issue whether using Day, TI, IR or II. I even have a Day night site on my rifle that cost less than £1000 yet allows me to shoot whenever at x50 if needed with a crystal clear image,, plus I can shift he view the sight has to ny smartphone and stream it live to other if needed. It even adjust for wind, ammo weight and does basically everything a Tank sight does. How times have changes from when iron sights were prevelent.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:
Another go at this, older sights lose resolution with magnification even true magnification has this problem. Modern digital sights are able to solve this issue whether using Day, TI, IR or II. .
Do you think you could explain how that is possible?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

I'm afraid it just is. One of my older sights when you go to maximum magnification the image loses resolution as the magnification increases starting at the edges and moving inwards. More modern lenses reduce this but with my Digital sight there is no problem at all. How it works is beyond me but it does, I was sceptical when a friend told me he had bought one but when I tries it on his rifle I was amazed and ordered one the same day. So basically modern lenses and digital technology have radically improves sights of all types over the last decade or so and are evolving as a very fast pace. Another example would be the gains in capability of Digital cameras. Who would have though in the 1990s that film cameras would all but be extinct by 2020, replaced by digital cameras?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

Losing the image at the edges under high magnification is indicative of bad optics. It’s particularly common with cheap variable magnification optics

At very high magnifications and certain lighting conditions on some optics you can also get chromatic aberrations (I think that’s what they’re called) where the different wavelengths (colours) refract different amounts and edges tend to blur out. But again this is most common with cheap optics.

For a digital camera to match the capacity of a human eye, it needs to have at least 1 pixel per arc minute. If you have more than that then the digital zoom effect becomes effective. Few cameras and very few, if any, thermal imagers, have that kind of pixel density*. Getting the zoom relies on optics, and modern optics are very good indeed, if you are willing to pay for them.

On a related note, talking about “times whatever” zoom is a poor comparator. A better number is the field of view and the resolution of the sensor.

* for an example, an 8MP camera (4K UHD video) will get 1 arc minute at a 60 degree included angle, which is kind of narrow. A 2m object 2m away would fill the screen.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

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
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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 :)
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)

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

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
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

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

Post Reply