David Moyes Posted July 4, 2019 Report Share Posted July 4, 2019 Quote "A decision on how many of the Army’s Challenger 2 tanks will be upgraded will not be made until 2021" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_James Posted July 4, 2019 Report Share Posted July 4, 2019 RIP LEP, again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 5, 2019 Report Share Posted July 5, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 7, 2019 Report Share Posted July 7, 2019 https://twitter.com/RH_BAES_Land Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 Laviduce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 Quite a difference compared to the old Wegmann 76mm Smoke System. Is it blocking both visual and thermal sight? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karamazov Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 5 hours ago, Rico said: Is it blocking both visual and thermal sight? yeah, like all modern smoke systems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 6 hours ago, Rico said: Quite a difference compared to the old Wegmann 76mm Smoke System. The Challenger 2 never used a Wegmann smoke grenade discharging system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karamazov Posted July 13, 2019 Report Share Posted July 13, 2019 Just now, SH_MM said: The Challenger 2 never used a Wegmann smoke grenade discharging system. He means that the new system is german. And the old one Wegmann was mounted on Leopard 2 mbt's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted July 16, 2019 Report Share Posted July 16, 2019 Not sure if these has been seen before but can anyone verify this: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted July 16, 2019 Report Share Posted July 16, 2019 yes it'soriginal page from report that @Molota_477 redraw. Laviduce 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanch90 Posted July 16, 2019 Report Share Posted July 16, 2019 @Laviduce could you post the full report? On the other hand, what is the "pip"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laviduce Posted July 16, 2019 Report Share Posted July 16, 2019 6 minutes ago, alanch90 said: @Laviduce could you post the full report? On the other hand, what is the "pip"? I do not have the full report. I have contacted a person that might have more "direct" information (turret data) on it. If he responds I will post it here. Also, i have no idea what the product improvement program (PIP) is about concerning this document. XhaxhiEnver and alanch90 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 16, 2019 Report Share Posted July 16, 2019 A PIP for the Challenger started around 1983. 1987 is when the Chieftain replacement program started. The image used for PIP looks like a MBT-80. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted July 16, 2019 Report Share Posted July 16, 2019 37 minutes ago, David Moyes said: A PIP for the Challenger started around 1983. 1987 is when the Chieftain replacement program started. The image used for PIP looks like a MBT-80. Looks quite short, wasn't MBT-80 roughly the same length as CR1? Driver position matches though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted July 17, 2019 Report Share Posted July 17, 2019 16 hours ago, David Moyes said: The image used for PIP looks like a MBT-80. It is not the MBT 80. Three concepts were apparently considered at different times for the Challenger PIP - turretless tank (achieving maximum armor protection), low-profile tank with autoloader ("British T-72") and conventional tank (with the lowest protection level). The drawing shows the "British T-72" concept with 55 metric tons weight, carousel style autoloader, three men crew and transversely mounted powerpack (1,250 to 1,500 hp desired output). Autoloader: 15 hours ago, Scav said: Driver position matches though. MBT 80 had central position for driver. alanch90, Molota_477 and Scav 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 17, 2019 Report Share Posted July 17, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SH_MM Posted July 17, 2019 Report Share Posted July 17, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scav Posted July 17, 2019 Report Share Posted July 17, 2019 55 minutes ago, SH_MM said: It is not the MBT 80. Three concepts were apparently considered at different times for the Challenger PIP - turretless tank (achieving maximum armor protection), low-profile tank with autoloader ("British T-72") and conventional tank (with the lowest protection level). The drawing shows the "British T-72" concept with 55 metric tons weight, carousel style autoloader, three men crew and transversely mounted powerpack (1,250 to 1,500 hp desired output). Yeah, that's quite interesting, was the turretless tank supposed to have an autoloader as well? 55 minutes ago, SH_MM said: MBT 80 had central position for driver. Some drawings have it, some don't, as @David Moyes pointed out, the concept drawings recently posted by Molota have the driver off to the side. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 17, 2019 Report Share Posted July 17, 2019 FMBT-70, MBT-80 and PIP concepts share a lot of similarities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 18, 2019 Report Share Posted July 18, 2019 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 21, 2019 Report Share Posted July 21, 2019 Close-up of Ajax turret by Lockheed Martin UK & Rheinmetall: Note the thickness of roof armour in 3rd image. Serge, Clan_Ghost_Bear and skylancer-3441 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/armys-tank-upgrade-plans-unachievable-says-official-report-wdfm3w6wv Quote The army’s plan to overhaul its Warrior tracked vehicles and Challenger tanks is “unachievable”, a damning official report has revealed. Defence chiefs are wrestling with a plan to repair and modernise its two main armoured fighting vehicles, which date back to the 1980s. A £1.6bn contract for American defence giant Lockheed Martin to overhaul about half of its 769-strong fleet of Warriors is years late and hundreds of millions of pounds over budget. The Sunday Times recently revealed the upgrade of the old hulls was so problematic that officials were considering buying new ones. A report by the Infrastructure Projects Authority, which oversees big government schemes, put the Armoured Infantry 2026 programme on a red warning for a second successive year. The authority uses a traffic light scheme to assess the viability of projects. Red means that “successful delivery appears to be unachievable”. The report says: “There are major issues, which at this stage do not appear to be manageable or resolvable. The project may need re-scoping and/or its overall viability reassessed.” Defence minister Stuart Andrew recently said that a decision on upgrading the army’s main battle tank, the Challenger 2, will not be made until 2021. The upgraded Warriors were due to enter service next March, but last year Ministry of Defence (MoD) permanent secretary Stephen Lovegrove said the project was 3½ years late. The upgrade has been dogged by problems. The MoD said: “This report reflects the complexity and scale of delivering the most advanced and complex government procurement programmes, with the Warrior programme upgrading a capability that is crucial to how the British Army fights. “Although progress of the programme has not been as straightforward as we would have wanted, we are working with manufacturer Lockheed Martin to ensure the army’s requirements are met.” Next day: Laviduce, Clan_Ghost_Bear and Serge 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 25, 2019 Report Share Posted July 25, 2019 Spoiler Laviduce and Clan_Ghost_Bear 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Moyes Posted July 30, 2019 Report Share Posted July 30, 2019 Laviduce and Lord_James 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-min.thumb.png.cefac62b2eec0841349887573d74bc8c.png)
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.