FV4034 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (British Army)

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

CameronPerson wrote:Bit more info on the above posted image via twitter
So the people on twitter haven't noticed that that it is a modified CR2 turret? There are a lot of tell-tales that it's the British turret under there and not a new build.

CameronPerson
Member
Posts: 300
Joined: 09 Apr 2017, 17:03
United Kingdom

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

Post by CameronPerson »

mr.fred wrote: There are a lot of tell-tales that it's the British turret under there and not a new build.
Used the existing turret, gutted it, chopped bits off, added lots and went from there. No way would the budget allow a complete new build

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

CameronPerson wrote:
mr.fred wrote: There are a lot of tell-tales that it's the British turret under there and not a new build.
Used the existing turret, gutted it, chopped bits off, added lots and went from there. No way would the budget allow a complete new build
Didn't MOD get bitten by the same idea on WCSP? We'll just chop up the turret and it'll be fine. End result, ended up buying all new turrets.

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

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

Post by -Eddie- »

Couple of late posts...

Challenger 2 (Mk2.../3?) firing the L55A1:



New turret, first digital one in Europe for 20 years:


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 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:.everything to avoid coming under kraut influence......because the Swedes know all to well what happens when under german ownership!
They tried it with subs Thyssen(Krupp) and had to do a police raid onto the premises to make sure that the IP/ designs stayed in Sweden (after first having been pre-empted fro participating in the ozzie subs competition)
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 »

Picked this one up from below the turret ring site: "the improved version of the Leopard 2's L55 smoothbore gun - the L55A1 - is supposed to be ready for series production in 2018 according to Rheinmetall. Together with new ammunition, the L55A1 is claimed to provide about 20% more performance than the current version.
- This matches the dates for the finished Leopard 2A7V development and would explain how the lethality can be increased despite the new 130 mm L51 gun still being in development."

That sounds like it, in turn, has been picked up from the manufacturer's info and does not tie the gun performance in a definitive way together with the alternative rounds: DM 63 and DM 53 A1 (the latter is an upgraded version of the DM 53)
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 »

All the comments above only confirm in my mind that the Rheinmetall offer is far superior to the BAe one. Regarding German ownership, the Swedes may have got burnt regarding the Submarines, but the German company involved has been taken to task on other issues as well and excluded form the next Frigate competition if I remember rightly. But this seems to be the exception to the rule, and I personally would rather work with Rheinmetall than BAe on the CR2 programme, with this also dovetailing into the Boxer programme or visa versa. It is the replacement gun that is the game changer for me, and the biggest thing against the BAe offer. If it is also possible to offer new build turret for export, this could also be an alternative to the current upgrade path Rheinmetall are offering to existing Leo2 customers. All in all this offer seems to open more possibilities than the BAe one in so many ways.

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2684
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

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

Post by bobp »

Does the upgrade package include a new Engine pack as well. This design does look the business and hope it wins any competition.

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

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

Post by -Eddie- »

bobp wrote:Does the upgrade package include a new Engine pack as well. This design does look the business and hope it wins any competition.
Not this design, but apparently it may get the same 1500HP engine and gearbox as the Leopard 2A7 when a separate competition to replace the drivetrain is started.

Rheinmetall have confirmed the turret will contain a new armour fit as well. Add on APS and the Challenger is suddenly looking very good again!

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 »

Watching a few other sites that comment on the CR2 LEP, it has been discussed that with BAe having its fingers in both proposals, the end result could be a hybrid of both, for example the Rheinmetall turrets and gun with some of the new electronics shown on the Black Knight and even some of the proposals put forward in the Army's Streetfighter experiment. IF this is the case the CR2 will regain its place at the top tier of MBTs.

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:proposals put forward in the Army's Streetfighter experiment
I thought it was a delivery project (for 22 kits). Would be interesting to know if that delivery was only partial and some 'good ideas' were kept for later
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 »

The experiment I was referring to was the one done in house where they gave the squaddies a bag of money and a CR2 and told them to go crazy, ending up with ladders attached to the side skirts, cameras everywhere and so on. The programme you are thinking of was the Urban Warfare one where they produced a couple of dozen sets for the CR2 in Iraq or maybe later. Either way I am starting to feel more optimistic regarding where the GR2 is heading as long as the funding remains in place.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7249
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

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

Post by Ron5 »

Lord Jim wrote:Watching a few other sites that comment on the CR2 LEP, it has been discussed that with BAe having its fingers in both proposals, the end result could be a hybrid of both, for example the Rheinmetall turrets and gun with some of the new electronics shown on the Black Knight and even some of the proposals put forward in the Army's Streetfighter experiment. IF this is the case the CR2 will regain its place at the top tier of MBTs.
I fear you may have unrealistic expectations on what can be done within the budget.

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

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

Post by RunningStrong »

Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Watching a few other sites that comment on the CR2 LEP, it has been discussed that with BAe having its fingers in both proposals, the end result could be a hybrid of both, for example the Rheinmetall turrets and gun with some of the new electronics shown on the Black Knight and even some of the proposals put forward in the Army's Streetfighter experiment. IF this is the case the CR2 will regain its place at the top tier of MBTs.
I fear you may have unrealistic expectations on what can be done within the budget.
Or what is contractually agreeable between all stakeholders.

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

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

Post by -Eddie- »

Further info, looks promising;



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 »

Against my better judgement I will remain a "Glass half full" on this subject. Rheinmetall will have developed their proposal against the MoD's list of requirements and obviously think they can install the new gun within the programmes budget. Whilst the BAe submission deals with the issues of obsolete systems it retains the original gun and the problems that go with it moving forward. Spending money to extend the life of a tank which is unable to carry out its primary function, killing other tanks, is not a logical way to proceed. This is critical as we are unlikely to deploy out heavy formations unless we expect to fight contemporary opponent. against lesser opposition we will probably rely on light AFVs and infantry ATGWs together with other assets such as the Apache Guardians and CAS.

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 »

Lord Jim wrote:Against my better judgement I will remain a "Glass half full" on this subject. Rheinmetall will have developed their proposal against the MoD's list of requirements and obviously think they can install the new gun within the programmes budget.
Not necessarily. It’s more likely they’ve offered it on top of the MoD’s list of requirements, in the same way that BAE has offered APS. If the MoD likes what they see and can stump up the extra cash, then they can have it. Otherwise they can’t.


Primary role of tanks is killing other tanks? Nonsense. The primary role of tanks is providing protected, mobile firepower. In this role, they are the most likely to come into contact with enemy tanks doing the same thing, so being able to kill your likely adversary is advisable, but it’s not their primary role.

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

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

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

Drummond and others have talked about testing with, and potential operational use of the, DM53 round.

Janes however seems to suggest that the intended round for the LEP standard Challenger would be the newer, more capable DM63 instead: https://www.janes.com/article/85918/iav ... nger-2-lep

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Together with new ammunition, the L55A1 is claimed to provide about 20% more performance than the current version.
DTR mag and Janes are pointing in the same direction... the thing is that the the older round also has got a newer version, too, so never sure without a specific mention, about which one "is coming to town".
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 »

Worth recalling that the DM53 and DM63 are very similar, the DM63 being essentially a reworked DM53 to perform more consistently, rather than as an explicitly new round. They are often mistaken and used as overlapping terms in some outlets and by some people (as inaccurate as that is).

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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: tie the gun performance in a definitive way together with the alternative rounds: DM 63 and DM 53 A1 (the latter is an upgraded version of the DM 53)
T the above to muddy the waters even further :)
... however, the manufacturer's statement that the best of the three, tested with the new version of the gun yielded a 20% improvement, is pretty clear
- if going to 130 mm is expected to give 50% (over the same benchmark), then that is pretty impressive
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 do remain doubtful that we'll see the 130mm unless something significantly changes in the status quo. It requires an enormous shift and a large expenditure away from the common market of ammunition. It was a response to the T-14, and now the T-14 looks increasingly unlikely to really be a thing in the way we all thought it would be.

That said, France has recently been testing their 140mm again. Not to actually consider using, but to gain feedback on larger guns in general, with aim to the 130mm, so who knows, maybe they'll do a CT40 and push ahead with a combined buy to try and help support a new ammo type.

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 »

RetroSicotte wrote:That said, France has recently been testing their 140mm again. Not to actually consider using, but to gain feedback on larger guns in general, with aim to the 130mm, so who knows, maybe they'll do a CT40 and push ahead with a combined buy to try and help support a new ammo type.
Only if they can ensure that we'll foot part of the development and be first user, thus reducing the risks for them

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:maybe they'll do a CT40
'True caseless' has turned out to be difficult with rifles (carried by grunts), but may be not so inside a vehicle... with an autoloader?
- a 'conventional' one-piece 130mm round is already quite a challenge, not to mention a 140
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:'True caseless' has turned out to be difficult with rifles (carried by grunts), but may be not so inside a vehicle... with an autoloader?
- a 'conventional' one-piece 130mm round is already quite a challenge, not to mention a 140
Ah, not quite what I meant. I just was meaning in the sense that they were happy to go with a non-standard round among a smaller group of nations, rather than sticking to the (mostly US based) mass produced standards.

Just meaning method of adoption away from the "norm", not using a similar round technology.

Post Reply