FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

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

mr.fred wrote:multi-barrelled smoke launchers (i.e. not a mortar)
Thank you, I was looking for the word for these 'stub' mortars https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steilfeue ... oerser.jpg

The good old days, when a caliber (a number) was the definition for a mortar (as opposed to 'guns') have long since passed :) : http://enacademic.com/pictures/enwiki/6 ... 0-1500.jpg
- why would I prefer a number?
- because dipping into linguistics, you tend to get too many different answers: "The word Mortar/Mörser goes back to the medieval age when they looked like a big, thick iron pot" as seen above (the same shape, but not size, as the bowl used to grind herbs and spice). They were restricted to high trajectory fire, and the term has stuck in the English language... luckily no more

Anyway, a launcher (in the age of missiles) is a good term: who would know that Hedgehog was a spigot mortar, whereas Squid (that replaced it) went back to a 'normal' mortar... Who cares :D as the Battle of the Atlantic was won
... now, back to the topic, as Advent does not seem to be working in bringing to the fore the Rheinmetall Chally2, perhaps we will need to wait until the 12 days of Christmas as after the birth of Christ the Magi, the three wise men only brought the prezzies on January 6. Will be an Epiphany! Regardless of whether Rheinmetall manages the deadline, or not that will happen.
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)

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

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Nicholas Drummond seems to be suggesting that the LEP now features a requirement for a new smoothbore gun???


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 »

This "news of the day is that the Army is extending scope of the LEP to include a 120mm smoothbore. This likelymeans a new turret. Should be announced early in the new year."
was only an option, to be looked into (like APS et al)... and now seems to be firming into a rqrmnt?
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 »

Begs the question...how? New turret has to come from somewhere, as there's no way a brand new turret is coming up for this, and single piece ammo can't fit in it right now.

Getting a Leopard's turret would be a janky solution. I'm sure the lower hull could be converted to carry single piece racks in addition to the Leo's 15 in the bustle, and its strongpoints on the front are higher rated than the Challenger 2's, but it also has an increased amount of weaker points too, mostly around the gunsight. And this assumes it's a 2A7 turret, anything from prior to the 2A6 would be a diabolically bad choice.

Leclerc has no-one in the running. Is General Dynamics paired with anyone? I had someone pitch them removing the bustle and adding the Meggitt to it. As he says:

"With Meggitt you have 3 options:
A - 4 man crew + autoloader + automated isolated magazine in bustle.
B - 4 man crew + automated isolated magazine in bustle.
C - New turret with 2 people (so 3 man crew in total) + autoloader + automated isolated magazine in bustle."


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 »

Lets just beg the Americans of a hundred odd M1s under their overseas disaster aid budget as our procurement plans seem to qualify.

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 »

Challenger2 upgrade if done by the user.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

The barrel mounted camera is an interesting concept and one that I think has value, but...

- I'd love to see how it withstands a few shots being so close to the muzzle
- It looks incredibly vulnerable to tree strikes et al in that location and mounting, which is something user is so often quick to point out themselves

I do like the dismounts (or not in CR2 case) display, especially when paired with a telescopic mast.

Ultimately, some nice ideas but not sure how many would stand up to their own scrutiny.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

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

Post by Caribbean »

To be fair, these are lash-up from off-the-shelf components. If the idea has merit, then I'm sure that someone has a (suitably-priced) bespoke solution
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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 »

As pointed out, the Danes have already installed ruggedized cameras on their Leopard 2s when in Afghanistan, both at the end of the barrel and up top to aid the infantry. I am not saying every CR2 should be so equipped but along with other ideas like facilities to carry some of the infantry's kit as well as items such as ladders should be combined into a TES kit so that a number of CR2s can be equipped if a mission requires it. In the modern battlefield, AFVs and Infantry need to work as closely as possible, if not joined at the hip.

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 »

Two years is almost up... I think zee Germans owe us at least some teaser piccies (will have to keep these pages readable through work place filter settings :) )
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)

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 »

Imagine if the Germans turn up with a Leopard 2A6 and say we can sell you 150 of these remanufactured form refurbished Leopard 2s for what is in the budget for the CR2 CEP!

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:remanufactured form refurbished Leopard 2s for what is in the budget for the CR2 CEP
Poland got close to that for euro 5 mln a piece... what was the exchange rate again?
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:Poland got close to that for euro 5 mln a piece... what was the exchange rate again?
Poland got awful quality ex-2A4s that they absolutely regret buying though. Their Leo fleet is an absolute shambles of mismatching variants (they Germany didn't specify in the deal) that is costing them billions more just to get to a workable state. Wouldn't use theirs as a comparison.

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

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

Post by Pongoglo »

Lord Jim wrote:Challenger2 upgrade if done by the user.
Good to see the .50 Cal mounted up top alongside the GPMG. Usual fit on an M1 Abraham's but rarely seen on Chally 2.

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:Poland got awful quality ex-2A4s that they absolutely regret buying though. Their Leo fleet is an absolute shambles of mismatching variants [...] Wouldn't use theirs as a comparison.
OK, let's try this one:
" buy 100 Leopard 2A6NL external link main battle tanks, plus spare parts for 10 years, combat simulators, maintenance simulators, special tools and testing equipment, and ammunition. At EUR 200 million, that’s less than EUR 2 million per tank."
- I guess they swapped out the radio kit, and that was that
- ten years of spares and things that go 'bang' with the deal

The special versions were kept back, and the buyer had to make do with some Leo1s (v good, but as the deal was not as much of a steal than the above... it has been kept :silent: )
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
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 »

Soldier magazine notes that the 60mm mortar can be operated from inside the turret. Cool, but i'm guessing that's while it is loaded, then someone has to reload from outside for obvious reasons.
Wonder how difficult it would be to retrofit the mortar that the israeli Merkava uses, which is breech loaded from inside.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Pongoglo
Member
Posts: 231
Joined: 14 Jun 2015, 10:39
United Kingdom

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

Post by Pongoglo »

Gabriele wrote:Soldier magazine notes that the 60mm mortar can be operated from inside the turret. Cool, but i'm guessing that's while it is loaded, then someone has to reload from outside for obvious reasons.
Wonder how difficult it would be to retrofit the mortar that the israeli Merkava uses, which is breech loaded from inside.
I'm sorry, I still cannot see the mortar - where? All I can see are the standard smoke dischargers that have always been there and have been fitted to every Brit AFV since Centurion was a rank not a tank? :-)

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 »

My Sarcasm Support Measures are not sure whether you are being serious or not. Anyway, the mortar is installed on the front of the turret, to the left of the gun. You can see it in many frames, but most clearly around 2:46, folded against the turret's glacis.
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 »

I have not seen any change notice to this
"The 24-month Assessment Phase (AP) to determine the winning bidder for the British Army Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT) Life Extension Programme (LEP) is due to be completed at the end of 2018." as summarised by Janes.

The two competitors were given real hardware (tanks) to play with, and we have only seen one (result).
- the sort of "easier" one as that consortium's edge is in using sensors already fielded to counter the obsolescense issues
- the other one [allegedly] is considering a bit more radical up-step... adapting a turret they have or are in the process of making for a next-gen Leo... have they given up? Or the MoD as per usual taking their time. They did say at the outset that 'the thinking hat' is likely to be 'on' for a half year or so ;)
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)

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 109
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Germany

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

Post by Qwerty »

Breaking!

Rheinmettal and BAESystems to collaborate on Cr2 upgrade and MIV

https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/rheinmet ... _16512.php

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/articl ... nt-venture

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 »

Interesting but cleverly avoids the fact that BAe sold off or closed the majority of the UK's land warfare manufacturing capability after buying most of it up.

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 »

Qwerty wrote:Breaking!

Rheinmettal and BAESystems to collaborate on Cr2 upgrade and MIV

https://www.rheinmetall.com/en/rheinmet ... _16512.php
Where does it say about the CR2 upgrade?

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 »

Qwerty wrote:Rheinmettal and BAESystems to collaborate on Cr2 upgrade and MIV
Absolutely the right way to go about it (Telford; heavy metal bashing + the UK HQ):
"facility in Telford, England and will sustain over 400 jobs in the UK, as well as preserve key technology and engineering skills.

Rheinmetall will purchase a 55 percent stake in the existing BAE Systems UK based combat vehicles business, with BAE Systems retaining 45 percent."

But the 'European market leader speak' totally ignores the Krupp+Nexter marriage, so now we will have
- GD
- the just announced (with BAE)
- the Franco-German JV (it is more, an incorporated company).

Lift the eyes, a little, and you have two in the US
- BAE ( a proud owner of a heavy metal bashing facility)
- and its main competitor... GD (who run a facility that is actually owned by the Federal Gvmnt!)

Is this a game of 5... to be reduced?

No, it was the German side (Rheinmetall, as for staying in AFVs) that was under pressure and went into the agreement,
RetroSicotte wrote:Where does it say about the CR2 upgrade?
What else is there, to play for?

so:
GD, Atlanticist ( :) )
BAE, Atlanticist ( :) )
KNDS, not-so-so Atlanticist
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 »

I mean more it was stated they teamed to work on the CR2, but the article does not state this at all. Given BAE is in a competing team already, it requires an acknowledgement if they are held away from this or not.

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 »

That is true, and I just wonder how many times I have asked (here) the question about the duplicitousness of the MoD comms policy around its tenders, errr, one expired 3 wks ago, hey-ho :silent:
- and the fact that (defence) industrial policy is in play is not supported by any RECENT gvmnt policy... if even that

But they play it anyway... with no rules :wtf:
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)

Post Reply