Serge Posted January 26, 2019 Report Share Posted January 26, 2019 On 1/24/2019 at 10:26 AM, David Moyes said: With such an upgrade, the Challenger-2 can reach 2070 on the second hand market. alanch90 and FORMATOSE 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted January 27, 2019 Author Report Share Posted January 27, 2019 2 hours ago, Serge said: With such an upgrade, the Challenger-2 can reach 2070 on the second hand market. I say we give them to Laos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Posted January 27, 2019 Report Share Posted January 27, 2019 Or south-Africa by 2035. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted January 27, 2019 Report Share Posted January 27, 2019 On 1/24/2019 at 2:17 PM, Willy Brandt said: And what T-72s are there in the UK? Or which T-72s does Rheinmetall own? I would assume that Rheinmetall shipped the Challenger 2s to Germany and developed the upgrade there. While the company has multiple subsidiaries in the UK, the one that seems to be most fitting for the development of the Challenger 2 LEP prototype would be Rheinmetall Defence UK Ltd. (the other ones are focused on producing parts for various projects and maintenance for MAN trucks). According to Rheinmetall's website this subsidiary has only 45 employees, of which likely not all are factory workers. The company also has still to produce turret shells for the British AJAX (unless they have finished this task), so it seems likely that the upgrade was developed in Germany, where the gun is also made. There used to be quite a few T-72 tanks available in Germany, but this might have changed in the past years. Still it would be possible to buy used T-72(M1s) from the Czech Republic, Hungary or Poland without paying too much for shipping. On 1/24/2019 at 2:17 PM, Willy Brandt said: Also whats up with your Blog? Any new Articles in the future? Or where can someone follow you except here? It is in a state of limbo: it is practically dead, but I don't want to fully kill it yet. I would like to revive it in another form (maybe with more writers than just me), but this is a rather complex matter in many points. Not happy with blogspot, local copyright laws (no fair use) and available time (I started writing twice as many articles than I managed to publish, because time was an issue and I didn't want to turn a hobby into work). Changes in my actual job (was assigned to a project in Spring of 2018, which required me sometimes to keep working until the evening) and the fact that I've probably got too many hobbies meant that I didn't have enough time for much work on the blog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted February 14, 2019 Report Share Posted February 14, 2019 @ 2:56 Perkins working on upgrading CV12 with common rail and new electronics rated at 1500hp. Answer seems to imply this is for Challenger 2, which would make sense as BAE has a contract to explore powerpack upgrades. We know that there was interest from Turkey for Altay and Nimda for India's FRCV is offering something that looks similar to their Czech T-72 upgrade (CV12@1000hp + Allsion XTG 411-6-N). @5:28 In negations with collaborators for a hybrid powerpack. BAE and Qinetiq?https://www.qinetiq.com/news/2017/05/qinetiq-and-bae-systems-partner-to-exploit-electric-drive-technology-worldwide Qinetiq used Challenger 2 as an example for their E-X-Drive at IAV 2019: There was a report (https://www.janes.com/article/85620/uk-mod-kicks-off-electric-vehicle-drive-study) that the British Army wants to hybridise their fleet of vehicles. All of the above points to a 1500hp modernised CV12 + E-X-Drive powerpack for Challenger 2 as a real possibility. MTU has recently gained a foothold in the UK market with Ajax & Boxer and would most likely offer to upgrade CR2, this seems to be Perkins/Caterpillar's response. Edit: Also Ramlaen and FORMATOSE 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted February 17, 2019 Report Share Posted February 17, 2019 https://de-de.facebook.com/ARMCENBovington/posts/2505840122823709 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted February 18, 2019 Report Share Posted February 18, 2019 Laviduce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karamazov Posted February 26, 2019 Report Share Posted February 26, 2019 What is this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted February 26, 2019 Report Share Posted February 26, 2019 https://defence-blog.com/army/bae-systems-reveals-further-details-about-medusa-project-for-challenger-2-upgrade.html Medusa: It's a research initiative to find out the feasibility and effectiveness of a soft-kill system based on MUSS by Hensoldt. Rheinmetall's ROSY was also being looked at.https://www.hensoldt.net/solutions/land/electronic-warfare/multifunctional-self-protection-system-for-vehicles-muss/ The companion programme is Icarus, which is focusing on a "sovereign" hard-kill system by Leonardo UK.https://www.uk.leonardocompany.com/-/icarus Laviduce and Karamazov 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted February 28, 2019 Report Share Posted February 28, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted March 4, 2019 Report Share Posted March 4, 2019 £1.5bn has been "re-prioritised" from the AFV budget. Finally giving up on Warrior CSP or the Treasury refusing to fund L-ATV for MRPV seem most likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty_Zuk Posted March 5, 2019 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2019 Someone needs to fucking DAB on the British MoD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted March 7, 2019 Report Share Posted March 7, 2019 LM are having a PR party at Bovington Tank Museum with WCSP suppliers. Announced ( the re-doing of) trials. Seems like a last-gasp attempt to instil some sort of confidence in WCSP. Even it it were to pass trials it would have to pass a contract review to see if it's still feasible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramlaen Posted March 7, 2019 Report Share Posted March 7, 2019 Is there any meat to the claim the AFV budget is getting cut by a similar amount to the cost of the Warrior upgrade? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 17 hours ago, Ramlaen said: Is there any meat to the claim the AFV budget is getting cut by a similar amount to the cost of the Warrior upgrade? £1.5bn is missing from the scheduled AFV budget according to reports and a Journalist has confirmed this with the MoD. However the MoD are quoted as saying that it isn't cut but "re-prioritised". WCSP is speculated at £1.4-1.6bn and the final decision date should be this year. Hence why many think that WCSP has finally been cut. The other possibility is L-ATV for MRV-P (Multi-Role Vehicle - Protected) Group 1 has been rejected by the Treasury. L-ATV was selected by the Army without a competition on the belief that its $250,000 base price and massive US purchase meant that even with required modifications it would still be cheaper to buy and run than any other competitor. However after some testing its rumoured to be too cramped for needed equipment. The modifications to make it UK road legal (right-hand drive) and desired protection levels have dramatically risen the average price to buy and run. Nearly all the work would be done in the US leaving little for UK industry. Previously the Treasury wouldn't fund Piranha V for FRES UV in 2008 because for such a large deal the MoD hadn't negotiated export or IP rights. So the Army went to GD and demanded exclusive rights to Piranha V. Got told no and collapsed the deal. Ramlaen and Serge 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted March 8, 2019 Report Share Posted March 8, 2019 Rheinmetall's Challenger 2 Mk.2 moving and firing. 0:26 & 1:13 Laviduce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted March 9, 2019 Report Share Posted March 9, 2019 Serge 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted March 12, 2019 Report Share Posted March 12, 2019 Laviduce and SH_MM 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karamazov Posted March 12, 2019 Report Share Posted March 12, 2019 41 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said: What is seen here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted March 12, 2019 Report Share Posted March 12, 2019 8 minutes ago, Karamazov said: What is seen here? Storage at the back of a Challenger 2 turret. Swings open. Model but you get the idea. Voodoo, Karamazov, Laviduce and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted March 14, 2019 Report Share Posted March 14, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted March 19, 2019 Report Share Posted March 19, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DIADES Posted March 20, 2019 Report Share Posted March 20, 2019 On 2/18/2019 at 6:27 AM, David Moyes said: https://de-de.facebook.com/ARMCENBovington/posts/2505840122823709 Nice to see a reasonable number of antenna mounts but very unusual to see them on the glacis? It will put them out of the way to the extent they can be standardized in that location across non-turreted versions. But it does place them in harms way and must compromise frontal protection? Then again, they are over track - I wonder how they are routed - at some point they must penetrate the hull. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted March 20, 2019 Report Share Posted March 20, 2019 12 hours ago, DIADES said: Nice to see a reasonable number of antenna mounts but very unusual to see them on the glacis? It will put them out of the way to the extent they can be standardized in that location across non-turreted versions. But it does place them in harms way and must compromise frontal protection? Then again, they are over track - I wonder how they are routed - at some point they must penetrate the hull. Not just antenna mounts but data+power access points to quickly add equipment (IED detectors & jammers etc...) Another 4 on the turret version and maybe 3 on raised-hull variant: Not sure how they penetrate hull: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted March 20, 2019 Report Share Posted March 20, 2019 Serge 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.