Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

Can someone confirm the following :

When the Challenger 2 was introduced, I understood the loader front episcope is able to be changed by a second independent sight. 

Was I right ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DndW4ScX0AAtu9o.jpg:largeDnc-7J5WwAUzXl3.jpg:large

 

No sensor units (optical, laser warner and radars) at the rear portion of the turret - or does the Challenger 2 LEP proposal from BAE Systems use only three sensor units (with the backwards facing one being located at the center of the turret)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SH_MM said:

DndW4ScX0AAtu9o.jpg:largeDnc-7J5WwAUzXl3.jpg:large

 

No sensor units (optical, laser warner and radars) at the rear portion of the turret - or does the Challenger 2 LEP proposal from BAE Systems use only three sensor units (with the backwards facing one being located at the center of the turret)?

 

 

0hKqFY9.jpg 

 

Better than what it seems. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Moyes said:


Turret uses regenerative braking. Friction caused by the turret slowing down gets converted into electricity that then recharges a battery.  Formula 1 cars use something similar - KERS/ERS. 

Errr... Welcome in the 1990s... Congrats!
More seriously is this a full switch from hydraulic to electric or a just a handiwork to ease the power management?

 

The ideal situation would be to remove all the hydraulic system to replace it with batteries accumulators and the double set of electric motor + gearbox (traverse & elevation).

But who knows their limitations in space & budget...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, David Moyes said:


Turret uses regenerative braking. Friction caused by the turret slowing down gets converted into electricity that then recharges a battery.  Formula 1 cars use something similar - KERS/ERS. 

 

That’s actually pretty damn cool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

b0383581c163c7f16413d929db9cdd31.jpg

Citing progress, UK officials commit to Warrior upgrade

21st September 2018 - 15:30 GMT | by Grant Turnbull in Millbrook

 

Top industry and UK government officials used this year’s DVD 2018 event to reaffirm their commitment to the British Army’s flagship Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP), despite unanswered questions still hanging over the project.

Speaking at the British Army event in Millbrook, the UK’s minister for defence ...

 

 

Source: https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/landwarfareintl/citing-progress-uk-officials-commit-warrior-upgrad/

 

On 9/17/2018 at 3:27 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Okay I assume the 2nd module is just located on the rear-left part of the turret, as it typical for some APS systems as well, for full coverage through minimal sensors. But we don't know if that is required either.  

 

The requirements include upgrades to situational awareness, but based on what I've read, it isn't specified how (aside of night vision for the driver and commander based on current technology).

 

On 9/17/2018 at 3:27 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

Both are offering very good capabilities that are not required, and that doesn't mean the UK MoD will dismiss them (although their intellectual capacity at making smart procurement decisions is known to be lacking), so you cannot just dismiss them either like you dismissed the addition of an APS. 

 

The gun has a very low chance of being replaced IMO, and if it would go ahead at a later point, it would probably be part of a separate project because a gun's replacement actually requires the two competitors - BAE and Rheinmetall, to cooperate.  

Similarly, the UK MoD is seeking an upgrade to the automotive components through a separate project as well.

 

I beg to differ. The UK military is currently running its own program for testing and possibly adopting active protection systems on the Challenger 2 MBT and various other vehicles. On the other hand, there is no program for a lethality upgrade (beyond the FCS changes required for the Challenger 2 LEP), despite army officials having specifically asked for a 120 mm smoothbore gun to counter the T-14 Armata and other Russian MBTs.

The gun replacement is simply a question of money - if it is cheap and can be included in the LEP without making cuts at other places, then there is no need to start a separate program. Rheinmetall has chosen to contract Curtiss-Wright for providing gun and turret drives for the Challenger 2 (upgrading these is required for the LEP as part of the removal of obsolence), which are desgined to (also) work with the 120 mm gun from Rheinmetall.

 

There is no need for BAE Systems to be involved in the gun upgrade with Rheinmetall having access to two Challenger 2 tanks. I think they might play it safe and keep the L30 gun on one demonstrator, while outfitting the other with a 120 mm L55(A1) gun.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By SH_MM
      Well, if you include TUSK as armor kit for the Abrams, then you also have to include the different Theatre Entry Standards (TES) armor kits (three versions at least) of the Challenger 2. The base armor however was most likely not upgraded.
       
      The Leclerc is not geometrically more efficient. It could have been, if it's armor layout wasn't designed so badly. The Leclerc trades a smaller frontal profile for a larger number of weakspots. It uses a bulge-type turret (no idea about the proper English term), because otherwise a low-profile turret would mean reduced gun depression (breech block hits the roof when firing). There is bulge/box on the Leclerc turret roof, which is about one feet tall and located in the centerline of the turret. It is connected to the interior of the tank, as it serves as space for the breech block to travel when the gun is depressed. With this bulge the diffence between the Leopard 2's and Leclerc's roof height is about 20 milimetres.
       

       
      The problem with this bulge is, that it is essentially un-armored (maybe 40-50 mm steel armor); otherwise the Leclerc wouldn't save any weight. While the bulge is hidden from direct head-on attacks, it is exposed when the tank is attacked from an angle. Given that modern APFSDS usually do not riccochet at impact angles larger than 10-15° and most RPGs are able to fuze at such an angle, the Leclerc has a very weakly armored section that can be hit from half to two-thirds of the frontal arc and will always be penetrated.
       

       
      The next issue is the result of the gunner's sight layout. While it is somewhat reminiscent of the Leopard 2's original gunner's sight placement for some people, it is actually designed differently. The Leopard 2's original sight layout has armor in front and behind the gunner's sight, the sight also doesn't extend to the bottom of the turret. On the Leclerc things are very different, the sight is placed in front of the armor and this reduces overall thickness. This problem has been reduced by installing another armor block in front of the guner's sight, but it doesn't cover the entire crew.
       

       
      The biggest issue of the Leclerc is however the gun shield. It's tiny, only 30 mm thick! Compared to that the Leopard 2 had a 420 mm gun shield already in 1979. The French engineers went with having pretty much the largest gun mantlet of all contemporary tanks, but decided to add the thinnest gun shield for protection. They decided to instead go for a thicker armor (steel) block at the gun trunnions.
       

       
      Still the protection of the gun mantlet seems to be sub-par compared to the Leopard 2 (420 mm armor block + 200-250 mm steel for the gun trunion mount on the original tank) and even upgraded Leopard 2 tanks. The Abrams has a comparable weak protected gun mantlet, but it has a much smaller surface. The Challenger 2 seems to have thicker armor at the gun, comparable to the Leopard 2.
       
      Also, the Leclerc has longer (not thicker) turret side armor compared to the Leopard 2 and Challenger 2, because the armor needs to protect the autoloader. On the other tanks, the thick armor at the end of the crew compartment and only thinner, spaced armor/storage boxes protect the rest of the turret. So I'd say:
      Challenger 2: a few weakspots, but no armor upgrades to the main armor Leclerc: a lot of weakspots, but lower weight and a smaller profile when approached directly from the turret front M1 Abrams: upgraded armor with less weakspots, but less efficient design (large turret profile and armor covers whole turret sides) So if you look for a tank that is well protected, has upgraded armor and uses the armor efficiently, the current Leopard 2 should be called best protected tank.
×