UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Member
Posts: 633
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby mr.fred » 04 Feb 2019, 07:40

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.

No it isn’t. The Rheinmetall offering has the same Thales sights fitted to the Ajax.
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 the original armour scheme with a cover over it.

the mush discussed ammo racks in the enlarged turret bustle and the same FCS as the latest Leopard 2 variants.
or a different one.
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.
sounds like wishful thinking

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1926
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

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

Postby Gabriele » 04 Feb 2019, 10:13

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.
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: 10060
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 04 Feb 2019, 12:23

Gabriele wrote:one standardized modular sensor system that can be mated to an APS procured probably from abroad and used on multiple fleets.

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.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2855
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Feb 2019, 21:35

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.

User avatar
-Eddie-
Member
Posts: 174
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:59
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby -Eddie- » 28 Feb 2019, 18:29

A recent shot of the Rheinmetall proposal for the Challenger 2 LEP.

Complete with defence secretary :think:

Image

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10060
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Mar 2019, 00:16

That's looking like a lean, mean, fighting machine :)

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1291
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

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

Postby seaspear » 01 Mar 2019, 03:10

It might look better complete with other things on top than the defence secretary , unless lol

Qwerty
Member
Posts: 60
Joined: 06 Apr 2018, 15:36
Location: Germany

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

Postby Qwerty » 01 Mar 2019, 07:07

seaspear wrote:It might look better complete with other things on top than the defence secretary , unless lol


Working at height and in a depot/yard - No protective head gear and no high visibility clothing.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 633
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby mr.fred » 01 Mar 2019, 08:41

Qwerty wrote:
Working at height and in a depot/yard - No protective head gear and no high visibility clothing.

Not needed if you are controlling the risk another way.
Probably not needed anyway.

seaspear
Senior Member
Posts: 1291
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 20:16
Location: Australia

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

Postby seaspear » 01 Mar 2019, 09:38

reflective vests , safety boots are at the bottom of the hierarchy of control when it comes to mitigating risk of a fall hazard, the vehicle could have been parked next to safety railing to prevent a fall hazard .
Probably meets definition of unsafe work practice ,could come down to any investigating inspector from the local government department .
I've had to call them in on occasion lol

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2317
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby RetroSicotte » 08 Mar 2019, 13:18

Image

First image I've ever seen of the L28A1 APFSDS round. No idea on its size to the L27.

That said I am going to the Tank Museum in the summer, I'll see if I can measure it, since we know L27s dimensions.

Just need to identify what its actual history is. I'd ask a museum person, but they'll all be busy with Tankfest prep. Lot of talk of it being an L27 replacement (which we've never seen for sure as being in service), or being made for Oman (no confirmation) or just an unused prototype round.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2855
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 09 Mar 2019, 07:59

That definitely looks a bit bigger than those I have seen.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 19 Apr 2019, 14:30

Iv been thinking recently after the C2 upgrade project is well under way we’ll need to start the process of designing the next gen MBT, could this be our chance to develop the next big change in MBT design. I say this as recently Iv come across concept designs of quad track excavator and thinking if and how this could be applied to a next gem MBT.



Now ignore that it’s an excavator and look more at how the track system is set up, could something like this be the next step to allow a smoother transit over rough terrain and even over areas that a MBT would struggle with today. It could also improve survivability, where as today if one track is taken out it’s not only a mission kill it means that the MBT is stuck there with its crew until / if it can be recovered, where as with this set up it should allow for one track to be taken out but for the MTB to still be able to get its self out of there.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 59
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jensy » 19 Apr 2019, 23:19

Jake1992 wrote: be applied to a next gem MBT.



Now ignore that it’s an excavator and look more at how the track system is set up, could something like this be the next step to allow a smoother transit over rough terrain and even over areas that a MBT would struggle with today. It could also improve survivability, where as today if one track is taken out it’s not only a mission kill it means that the MBT is stuck there with its crew until / if it can be recovered, where as with this set up it should allow for one track to be taken out but for the MTB to still be able to get its self out of there.



Can't help but think of the Scorpion tank from the Halo series, which I've always wondered about the real-world viability of....

Image

The part of that video which really got me, was when it used the tracks like legs to raise itself up for greater height. That must be rather useful for shooting from bending cover.

Problem (aside from £s) is, what level of design expertise is even left in the UK for AFVs?

Jensy

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1080
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Jake1992 » 20 Apr 2019, 00:10

Jensy wrote:
Jake1992 wrote: be applied to a next gem MBT.



Now ignore that it’s an excavator and look more at how the track system is set up, could something like this be the next step to allow a smoother transit over rough terrain and even over areas that a MBT would struggle with today. It could also improve survivability, where as today if one track is taken out it’s not only a mission kill it means that the MBT is stuck there with its crew until / if it can be recovered, where as with this set up it should allow for one track to be taken out but for the MTB to still be able to get its self out of there.



Can't help but think of the Scorpion tank from the Halo series, which I've always wondered about the real-world viability of....

Image

The part of that video which really got me, was when it used the tracks like legs to raise itself up for greater height. That must be rather useful for shooting from bending cover.

Problem (aside from £s) is, what level of design expertise is even left in the UK for AFVs?

Jensy


Oh I agree it could give plenty added benefits but will need a lot of work to get there.

This is were the Ajax and C2 upgrade programs should be used to build skills in all areas to allow for the follow on of future MBT design

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2044
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

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

Postby abc123 » 20 Apr 2019, 18:14

Number of tanks in the British Army goes down by 1/3- from 227 to 148

https://defence-blog.com/army/british-a ... third.html

Disgrace. :thumbdown:

And all of that in time of such big evil Russian-Threat-from-the-East ( TM ). :o

Oh, here's a better title from The Times:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/british-army-outgunned-by-cambodia-after-tank-cuts-qczvrqz0n
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby bobp » 20 Apr 2019, 20:11

Disgrace indeed, not surprised there is no dosh to pay for upgrades.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2855
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Apr 2019, 02:14

At least we are keeping some, and if these reduction lead to the remainder being properly modernised to keep them effective into the 2030s I will be happy, but that does entail a new gun. It doesn't matter how good your situational awareness and targeting capabilities are if you cannot take out the target!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10060
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Apr 2019, 08:53

There has been talk that the 3rd tank rgmnt would come from Yeomanry (unlike today, providing crews). If there's any truth in that, BATUS will reveive a squadron's worth.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby whitelancer » 21 Apr 2019, 15:20

As 56 are required by each Regiment for a total of 112 that would leave just 36 for training and sustainment. So no 3rd Regiment, at best the Yeomanry will provide a limited battle causality replacement capability.

It is hardly a surprise though given the announcement some time ago that the number of Armoured Regiments would be reduced to 2. Of course it does mean that updating challenger, if it actually happens, will cost more per Tank. Are we at point when the cost of maintaining such a reduced heavy armour capability is no longer worth it?

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2044
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15

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

Postby abc123 » 21 Apr 2019, 18:23

Lord Jim wrote:At least we are keeping some, and if these reduction lead to the remainder being properly modernised to keep them effective into the 2030s I will be happy, but that does entail a new gun. It doesn't matter how good your situational awareness and targeting capabilities are if you cannot take out the target!


It's 2019, not 2002. I really don't understand your comment. It's five years after Ukraine/Crimea/Donbass, evol bad Russia preying on Baltics, Poland, Romania, Venus, Mars ( not that I believe in these nonsences, but HMG shoud put their money where their mouths are ), and you CUT number of tanks? Just 8 ( if even that ) Type 26 frigates? Etc.
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 2855
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Apr 2019, 20:56

My comment was meant somewhat sarcastically as I wouldn't put it past our Government to follow Belgium amongst others and decide that we no longer need Heavy formations and the future is that of Medium ones based around the Boxer and Ajax, the result all the Challengers are retired. So retaining two Regiments worth is a positive in my book.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby whitelancer » 22 Apr 2019, 00:55

I wouldn't count your chickens, or tanks in this case. Reducing to just 2 Regiments just makes it easier to bin them completely. You only have to look at what happened to the Harrier to see the way this is going.

S M H
Member
Posts: 355
Joined: 03 May 2015, 12:59
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby S M H » 22 Apr 2019, 03:01

whitelancer wrote:I wouldn't count your chickens, or tanks in this case. Reducing to just 2 Regiments just makes it easier to bin them completely. You only have to look at what happened to the Harrier to see the way this is going.
Managed treasury decline at its finest.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10060
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

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

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Apr 2019, 08:54

whitelancer wrote: count your chickens, or tanks in this case. Reducing to just 2 Regiments

... gives further savings with the number of Warriors required for 4 AI bns (I wonder if there are any paired units in the Reserves... a handful for BATUS anyway, too).


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests