FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 »

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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)?
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)

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by BV Buster »

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: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by SKB »


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 »

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
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by BV Buster »

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

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by mr.fred »

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: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

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
United Kingdom

Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (Army)

Post by BV Buster »

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

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

Post by mr.fred »

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

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

Post by mr.fred »

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
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

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

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

Post by mr.fred »

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
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

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: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
United Kingdom

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

Post by Zealot »

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
United Kingdom

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

Post by rjhancock »

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
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

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
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

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

Post by Timmymagic »

Ron5 wrote: to see an APS. Is it Trophy?
Looks like Iron Fist.

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

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

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

Post by mr.fred »

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.

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

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

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

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

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

Post by Jake1992 »

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

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

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

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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
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)

Online
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

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

Post by RunningStrong »

~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.

Post Reply