Referring to what, specifically?mr.fred wrote:As Descartes once said; you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.
FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Ignoring the paradox inherent to replying, and aimed more at your source that your summation, the power train upgrade, if it occurs, is separate to the LEPRetroSicotte wrote: Referring to what, specifically?
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
That would be why I specified that we don't have anything official yet at the very top of the post before extrapolating the "if".mr.fred wrote:Ignoring the paradox inherent to replying, and aimed more at your source that your summation, the power train upgrade, if it occurs, is separate to the LEP
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Agree, and hope so. Earlier sources were talking about the ones 'in turret' only?RetroSicotte wrote: It is reported that the entire ammunition of this tank will be placed in isolated compartments.
This would make it only the second Western tank in service with such a crucial system, the first being the Abrams. HUGE survivability upgrade.
Another addition that can break. Turbines are thirsty, noisy and have a huge IR signature... but at least they are simple and straightforward.RetroSicotte wrote:Leclercs unique supercharger
Now let's go and find those, too, that were junked in the 2010 'dinosaurs' review !RetroSicotte wrote:Talk about rags to riches
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)
Another addition that can break. Turbines are thirsty, noisy and have a huge IR signature... but at least they are simple and straightforward.[/quote]ArmChairCivvy wrote:Agree, and hope so. Earlier sources were talking about the ones 'in turret' only?
Leclercs unique supercharger
Seems to be a bit of back and forth on it. Reporting going both ways.
But what stands out is the turret bustle is huge now. I should try doing an analysis with the M1, since it has a bustle storage of the sort we'd all hope for.
Leclerc hasn't really reported any issues with the supercharger. I've spoken to someone who used to operate on them on Discord, and he was always very complimentary about its mobility and ease of use.
I do wonder if the new Challenger upgrade finally replaces the twin sticks with a wheel.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
+RetroSicotte wrote:Challenger 2 was estimated by several sources ahead of Swedish trials (that the Challenger pulled from) to be around about [level with] the M1A2's
Just re-enforce the point made of "generational" differences, in one of the Swedish trials (earlier ones than what is referred to?) they had their T-80 fire at the S-tank... and the round penetrated - both sides!RetroSicotte wrote:"nothing said against it" is because no-one talks about it, period. They aren't going to publically talk about 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)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I have not come across a piccie of the two DM rounds side by side - like the one they have posted about the new 130 round (which is huge).RetroSicotte wrote:what stands out is the turret bustle is huge now. I should try doing an analysis with the M1, since it has a bustle storage of the sort we'd all hope for.
- so may be the sructure now takes more space, may what's inside are longer... may be both?
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)
Wasn't it a T-72? Same gun either way I suppose.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Just re-enforce the point made of "generational" differences, in one of the Swedish trials (earlier ones than what is referred to?) they had their T-80 fire at the S-tank... and the round penetrated - both sides!
The S-Tank would fail against anything using APFSDS really. It relied on steep angles to "bounce" off of otherwise thin armour, but shells of that sort just don't do that any more. They either shatter or go in anyway.
Almost no difference between DM53 and 63, difference between M829 and DM63 is less known, but I'm pretty certain I could find it.ArmChairCivvy wrote:I have not come across a piccie of the two DM rounds side by side - like the one they have posted about the new 130 round (which is huge).
- so may be the sructure now takes more space, may what's inside are longer... may be both?
If its bustle is about the same size as the Abrams one, it could very well imply that yes, it's all turret stowed. Bustles don't tend to be armoured by more than a bit of RHA (certainly no composite, not enough LOS room) so their size wouldn't differ greatly due to internals.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Can someone remind me what is the timeframe for the CR2 CEP.
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
As a very rough memory guess, choice of bidder within the next few months, in service by 2025, I think?Lord Jim wrote:Can someone remind me what is the timeframe for the CR2 CEP.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Starting to sound like the heavier and medium bdes will be transformed/ stood up at the same time... makes sense with whole regiments moving between bdesRetroSicotte wrote:in service by 2025, I think?
- IF the procurement plans won't slip
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)
If everything holds together, and with a little git of tinkering, the Army could actually end up with a AFV fleet fit for purpose for once.
the Army will be well placed to deal with
Challenger 2 CEP
Warrior CEP
Ajax family
Boxer family
JLTV family
The last three if a number of additional variants are purchased or those already planned slightly modified, the Army will be well placed to deal with most foreseeable threat going forward. There are additional capability still needed but some of these at least could be covered by the next Equipment Plan.
As for the CR2 CEP I also really hope the MoD goes for the L55A1 regardless of which proposal is taken up. I really I think the MoD should get both bidders to work together to get the best of both in ne package. It must be tempting to adopt the new gun,with the through life savings its adoption will bring, and the commonality with out allies around the world.
It is also going to be interesting to see which APS the MoD adopts for the CR2 and which other vehicles are fitted with it. I can see Boxer being a priority, but I see the APS being part of the TES kits with most vehicles FFBNW.
the Army will be well placed to deal with
Challenger 2 CEP
Warrior CEP
Ajax family
Boxer family
JLTV family
The last three if a number of additional variants are purchased or those already planned slightly modified, the Army will be well placed to deal with most foreseeable threat going forward. There are additional capability still needed but some of these at least could be covered by the next Equipment Plan.
As for the CR2 CEP I also really hope the MoD goes for the L55A1 regardless of which proposal is taken up. I really I think the MoD should get both bidders to work together to get the best of both in ne package. It must be tempting to adopt the new gun,with the through life savings its adoption will bring, and the commonality with out allies around the world.
It is also going to be interesting to see which APS the MoD adopts for the CR2 and which other vehicles are fitted with it. I can see Boxer being a priority, but I see the APS being part of the TES kits with most vehicles FFBNW.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Is this now likely to become a practical inevitability?Lord Jim wrote:I really I think the MoD should get both bidders to work together to get the best of both in one package.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I'd say the most likely outcome is that prick in the Treasury cancelling the project.Poiuytrewq wrote:Is this now likely to become a practical inevitability?Lord Jim wrote:I really I think the MoD should get both bidders to work together to get the best of both in one package.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Well as mentioned above, Rheinmetall are already in talks with BAe to take over what was their main land manufacturing site which is likely to be the location for Boxer production once everything is signed off and would therefore also be where the work on the CR2 would take place. Whether both bidding groups could work together is up for debate, but my wish would be for the MoD to get as much bang for its buck with the programme. As it stands the Rheinmetall bid is in a different league to that offered by the BAe led group, and I would be surprised if the former's bid included that many items that we options rather than part of their firm bid. The change in power pack is probably one such option, but if the gun was not part of the firm bid, the change in turret would not have been needed.
The Army's AFV re-equipment plans have finally come to the fore with the reappearance of a perceived threat to NATO from Russia. The programmes in place will finally begin to undo the neglect suffered by the Army over the past three decades at least and unless the threat is seen to go away, the programmes will probably be a higher priority than they have been for years, giving them some protect from arbitrary cuts. In the CR2s favour is the fact that it should if done right deliver a lot of capability for relatively little money in the grand scheme of things. Of course a lot is going to depend on the next CSR as to whether the MoD is able to defend its position.
The Army's AFV re-equipment plans have finally come to the fore with the reappearance of a perceived threat to NATO from Russia. The programmes in place will finally begin to undo the neglect suffered by the Army over the past three decades at least and unless the threat is seen to go away, the programmes will probably be a higher priority than they have been for years, giving them some protect from arbitrary cuts. In the CR2s favour is the fact that it should if done right deliver a lot of capability for relatively little money in the grand scheme of things. Of course a lot is going to depend on the next CSR as to whether the MoD is able to defend its position.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
I'd say the most likely outcome is the UK electorate cancelling the "prick in the Treasury's" contract before too much longer...Ron5 wrote:I'd say the most likely outcome is that prick in the Treasury cancelling the project.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Well, if that happens, we'll get a whole new toolboxPoiuytrewq wrote:I'd say the most likely outcome is the UK electorate cancelling the "prick in the Treasury's" contract before too much longer...
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4111
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Made up almost entirely of spanners?Caribbean wrote:Well, if that happens, we'll get a whole new toolboxPoiuytrewq wrote:I'd say the most likely outcome is the UK electorate cancelling the "prick in the Treasury's" contract before too much longer...
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Poiuytrewq wrote:Made up almost entirely of spanners?
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
Looking at some of the latest Leopard 2A6 models in service (Danish) you can see the same "Hunter Killer" sight on the turret roof as we see on Rheinmetall's submission for the CR2 CEP. This appears to be a more advanced version than fitted to he Leopard 2A6s in German Service. It would appear that the new turret Rheinmetall have shown on their CR2 CEP Demonstrator is a CR2 Turret stripped sown and rebuilt with a new armour package, the mush discussed ammo racks in the enlarged turret bustle and the same FCS as the latest Leopard 2 variants. This may mean that by using off the shelf items the cost has been reduces to a level that the whole package as shown, not APS or new engine, could be affordable within the CAP budget. The haggling could then be over these last two items but even the starting package would bring the CR2 back up to the top table of MBTs.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
No it isn’t. The Rheinmetall offering has the same Thales sights fitted to the Ajax.Lord Jim wrote:Looking at some of the latest Leopard 2A6 models in service (Danish) you can see the same "Hunter Killer" sight on the turret roof as we see on Rheinmetall's submission for the CR2 CEP.
or the original armour scheme with a cover over it.It would appear that the new turret Rheinmetall have shown on their CR2 CEP Demonstrator is a CR2 Turret stripped sown and rebuilt with a new armour package,
or a different one.the mush discussed ammo racks in the enlarged turret bustle and the same FCS as the latest Leopard 2 variants.
sounds like wishful thinkingThis may mean that by using off the shelf items the cost has been reduces to a level that the whole package as shown, not APS or new engine, could be affordable within the CAP budget. The haggling could then be over these last two items but even the starting package would bring the CR2 back up to the top table of MBTs.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
The APS was never meant to be part of the LEP as it is being run separately under Project MEDUSA and ICARUS with the aim of coming up with one standardized modular sensor system that can be mated to an APS procured probably from abroad and used on multiple fleets.
That BLACK NIGHT had Iron Fist is just due to BAE and GD feeling that they could fit it into the budget, having been conservative on the rest.
That BLACK NIGHT had Iron Fist is just due to BAE and GD feeling that they could fit it into the budget, having been conservative on the rest.
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)
A good idea, following in the 'applique' footsteps. Also, the separation into two subsystems as then there will be guidance as to what to build in and at the same time, how to harness the great progress constantly being made in this area.Gabriele wrote:one standardized modular sensor system that can be mated to an APS procured probably from abroad and used on multiple fleets.
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)
This makes sense as long as we don't end up sitting on the fence continuously waiting for the next best thing to turn up. I think we need to take the initial plunge sooner rather than later to equip a limited number of vehicles that would be used in operations, say enough for a Battalion level battlegroup, so kits for CR2s, Warrior CEP, Ajax and so on.
Re: FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)
A recent shot of the Rheinmetall proposal for the Challenger 2 LEP.
Complete with defence secretary
Complete with defence secretary