FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
With sufficient fire power the "Strike" Brigades could possibly hold their own, but as has been recognised by the Army, the present planned organisation falls well short of what is required. So until then we really need to hold on to the CR2s until either this is rectified or some provides funding to bring the AI Brigades into the 21st century. Across the Army as a whole the peacetime mentality of the MoD and Treasury seem to be happy to let its ability to delivery a suitable level of firepower against a fie, especially peer level to diminish as a means of finding savings. I just hope that we never find ourselves in a situation where this comes back to bite us.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
(BAE Systems) 3rd October 2018
We have unveiled Black Night – a working example of our vision for the proposed upgrade of the British Army’s Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Once a knight, always a knight. Twice a night, you're doing alright.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Update soon after the outing of the Black Night https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/0 ... nly-looms/ states
- that all the design details were handed in in Sept
- the current phase draws to an end at the end of the year (we get to see the other prototype?)
- but moving to tender might take another Qrtr... or 2. Driven by the MDP? Force mix being a driver for how many will be needed, and if fewer, then the fixed budget can be divided by a lesser number, affording more goodies (mainly new gun, APS or both?) to be included
- that all the design details were handed in in Sept
- the current phase draws to an end at the end of the year (we get to see the other prototype?)
- but moving to tender might take another Qrtr... or 2. Driven by the MDP? Force mix being a driver for how many will be needed, and if fewer, then the fixed budget can be divided by a lesser number, affording more goodies (mainly new gun, APS or both?) to be included
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
(Forces TV) 6 Nov 2018
Personnel from the Royal Tank Regiment have been testing their skills in the Omani desert, as part of Exercise Saif Sareea 3. The exercise has been years in the planning and is the UK's biggest military exercise for almost 20 years.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
The kit fitted to the CR2s is quiet interesting, especially the side skirts. They seem to have evolved from those in GW2 being a lot deeper so they do the roll of the sheets used to reduce the wear and tear due to sand in the running gear. Is fitting a RWS standard on all operationally deployed CR2s now, I cannot remember see them fitted to the CR2s in the Baltics. It may be getting less effective but it is still a fine looking Beast.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Small detail, has passed me unnoticed so far:
". Each competitor received two units for that purpose: one to be used as a fully operational vehicle, and one to be exploited as a demonstrator of the new solutions for all the obsolete components needing to be replaced."
- so whatever they decide to do with the demonstrator (and this can be iterated, sure), the bidder is in a position to evaluate any performance loss against the "original issue"
". Each competitor received two units for that purpose: one to be used as a fully operational vehicle, and one to be exploited as a demonstrator of the new solutions for all the obsolete components needing to be replaced."
- so whatever they decide to do with the demonstrator (and this can be iterated, sure), the bidder is in a position to evaluate any performance loss against the "original issue"
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
They are the same side skirts from Streetfighter, it's just they don't have the ERA mounted on them.Lord Jim wrote:The kit fitted to the CR2s is quiet interesting, especially the side skirts. They seem to have evolved from those in GW2 being a lot deeper so they do the roll of the sheets used to reduce the wear and tear due to sand in the running gear.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Cheers for the info, I am not up to date with the full TES set up for the CR2. Makes you wonder why the eight or so CR2s that are part of "Goat" Force in the Baltics are not fitted out.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Russia objected to GMLRS so they were left behind as "too warlike". Same reason?Lord Jim wrote: CR2s that are part of "Goat" Force in the Baltics are not fitted out
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3247
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I think we're going to have quite a few spare from the Panther in due course. A lot of platforms that had them mounted in Afghan had them pinched from Panther.Lord Jim wrote: Is fitting a RWS standard on all operationally deployed CR2s now, I cannot remember see them fitted to the CR2s in the Baltics.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Putin must be hoping Labour get in at the next election, having a nation with a Nuclear Deterrent but stating that it would never be used must appeal to him. We really need to stop this touchy, feely, politically correct Bull****.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Russia objected to GMLRS so they were left behind as "too warlike". Same reason?Lord Jim wrote: CR2s that are part of "Goat" Force in the Baltics are not fitted out
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Or just simply send the GMLRS that can spoil the parade in Central St. PeteLord Jim wrote:We really need to stop this
... or stop the very first INF treaty enroachment in its tracks (though they are actually wheeled?):
Prvi raketni sistemi "Iskander" u Južnom vojnom okrugu | Svet ...
http://www.novosti.rs/.../planeta.299.h ... -sistemi-I...
17 dec. 2013 - ... raketnih sistema "Iskander-M" za raketnu brigade tog okruga, u Pokrajini Krasnodar na jugu Rusije. ... Banja Luka 17. decembar 2013.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
It might seem counter-intuitive, yeah, but there's really no point in doing so. Anything hitting the side in a peer conflict is going to go through, side-skirts or not. It's just excess weight at that point. They're designed for counter-insurgency more than anything else, to reflect RPG-7s, possibly RPG-29s.Lord Jim wrote:Cheers for the info, I am not up to date with the full TES set up for the CR2. Makes you wonder why the eight or so CR2s that are part of "Goat" Force in the Baltics are not fitted out.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Certainly. But also what happens to a tank force advancing through wooded areas. As for Estonia, I guess we will be using the reverse gear, so no hostiles on the flanksRetroSicotte wrote:for counter-insurgency more than anything else, to reflect RPG-7s, possibly RPG-29s.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Anything Russia would be firing at tanks won't care if there's the Streetfighter ERA or not. Every MBTs side modules like that is aimed exclusively at older yields more commonly found in the middle east. Note the US doesn't put TUSK on their M1s in Eastern Europe either.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Certainly. But also what happens to a tank force advancing through wooded areas. As for Estonia, I guess we will be using the reverse gear, so no hostiles on the flanks
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Yes. The other thing to note is that Russia has omitted ERA from their recently modified tanks, from those angles on the turret that are in any way sloping downwardsRetroSicotte wrote:Note the US doesn't put TUSK on their M1s in Eastern Europe either.
... to keep any "close protection" infantry, or even the tank crew handling reloads safe? Or what might lie behind it?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Can you show me a picture of the type you mean, please? With Russian tanks there is an unending myriad of variants. :pArmChairCivvy wrote:Yes. The other thing to note is that Russia has omitted ERA from their recently modified tanks, from those angles on the turret that are in any way sloping downwardsRetroSicotte wrote:Note the US doesn't put TUSK on their M1s in Eastern Europe either.
... to keep any "close protection" infantry, or even the tank crew handling reloads safe? Or what might lie behind it?
Although if it's the most recent Relikt ones ('M' designators), then it's mostly just down to a redesign of how the ERA functions compared to the Kontakt series.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Indeed. The more frequent 90S with a T-80 in this oneRetroSicotte wrote:Can you show me a picture of the type you mean, please? With Russian tanks there is an unending myriad of variants.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2CWZFvF-l1E/ ... 1%2580.jpg
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/ur ... 853764608/
Challenger 2 Urban Kit Demonstrator
Includes:
External Storage for Breaching Tools
External Storage for dismounted equipment
Turret mounted Mortar
Commanders GPMG and Loaders HMG
Enhanced Situation Awareness (Fixed Cameras, and Panoramic 360 Thermal)
Barrel cameras to see left and right at junctions without exposing the platform
Camera Feeds streamed to Dismounts Soldier Systems
Challenger 2 Urban Kit Demonstrator
Includes:
External Storage for Breaching Tools
External Storage for dismounted equipment
Turret mounted Mortar
Commanders GPMG and Loaders HMG
Enhanced Situation Awareness (Fixed Cameras, and Panoramic 360 Thermal)
Barrel cameras to see left and right at junctions without exposing the platform
Camera Feeds streamed to Dismounts Soldier Systems
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Israelis never let go of the 60mm mortar in the turret... it is even in the Namer IFV turret. There was a time in which it was common in british armour too. In fact, i seem to remember that's where the Israelis picked up the habit, although i might be wrong.Turret mounted Mortar
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
The killer-diller part of the Israeli armoured force in Sinai in 1967 was made in Britain (with guns accurate at long range). Despite the success (61 tanks lost vs. 700 lost in action, many more I presume in other ways, just like in Iraq) and 300 KIA (vs. 12.000), the price was very high in dead tank commanders.Gabriele wrote:There was a time in which it was common in british armour too. In fact, i seem to remember that's where the Israelis picked up the habit, although i might be wrong
- reason 1: optics were not what they are today, so head out of the hatch
- reason 2: when you stop, the crew can do the 'stuff' under armour, but the commander is 'surplus' and the smoke & illum "mortars" on the outside were replenished by them
... ever since the mortars (now looking more like mortars, too) have been operated, incl. reloading, mainly from under armour
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
BTW, isn't there only weeks left to the 2yr deadline and the "German" version of the British Ch2 has not been seen (yet)?
- Santa will pick one up, on his way to here from the North (Pole)?
- Santa will pick one up, on his way to here from the North (Pole)?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
The British have had multi-barrelled smoke launchers (i.e. not a mortar) on AFVs since the Centurion. Comet was probably the last tank to have it fitted. Though apparently Sherman’s had something similar.
Not a bad idea though. With modern fire control, you could probably be pretty precise about where the bomb goes.
On the concept tank;
Lack of heads-out protection for the pintel mounts is a little concerning.
Not a bad idea though. With modern fire control, you could probably be pretty precise about where the bomb goes.
On the concept tank;
Lack of heads-out protection for the pintel mounts is a little concerning.