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 (British Army)

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »


(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.

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 »

Once a knight, always a knight. Twice a night, you're doing alright.


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 »

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
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)

User avatar
SKB
Senior Member
Posts: 7930
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:35
England

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

Post by SKB »


(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.

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

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 »

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"
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 (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

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.
They are the same side skirts from Streetfighter, it's just they don't have the ERA mounted on them.

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote: CR2s that are part of "Goat" Force in the Baltics are not fitted out
Russia objected to GMLRS so they were left behind as "too warlike". Same reason?
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)

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

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

Post by Timmymagic »

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

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

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: CR2s that are part of "Goat" Force in the Baltics are not fitted out
Russia objected to GMLRS so they were left behind as "too warlike". Same reason?
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****.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:We really need to stop this
Or just simply send the GMLRS that can spoil the parade in Central St. Pete
... 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)

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

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

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.
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.

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:for counter-insurgency more than anything else, to reflect RPG-7s, possibly RPG-29s.
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 ;)
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 (British Army)

Post by RetroSicotte »

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 ;)
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.

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:Note the US doesn't put TUSK on their M1s in Eastern Europe either.
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 downwards
... 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)

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

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:Note the US doesn't put TUSK on their M1s in Eastern Europe either.
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 downwards
... to keep any "close protection" infantry, or even the tank crew handling reloads safe? Or what might lie behind it?
Can you show me a picture of the type you mean, please? With Russian tanks there is an unending myriad of variants. :p

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.

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:Can you show me a picture of the type you mean, please? With Russian tanks there is an unending myriad of variants.
Indeed. The more frequent 90S with a T-80 in this one
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)

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

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

Post by RetroSicotte »

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/ur ... 853764608/

Challenger 2 Urban Kit Demonstrator

Image

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

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

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

Post by Gabriele »

Turret mounted Mortar
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.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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 »

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
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.
- 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)

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 »

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)?
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 (British Army)

Post by mr.fred »

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.

Post Reply