Jump to content
tanknet.org

Uk Surges Ahead With Challenger 2 Upgrade


Recommended Posts

That rules out the British then. :D

 

I wonder if its possible to make a 152mm HESH round....

In that caliber Shillelagh of course! :P

 

 

Seriously, russian HE-Frag are much better.

 

 

Well I don't know. In recent years quite a lot of Leopard 2 have been converted to bridge layers, AA, AEV and other specialist vehicles. The Brits could go collect all these spare turrets from around the globe. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

 

 

 

 

Alright, admit, im impressed.

 

 

 

Didnt do a Type 90 though did you? No. :D

 

 

 

Challenge accepted and met. ChallyType 90.

 

20160123_090130_resized.jpg?w=680

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a topic dedicated to your turrets switch. :D

I think I am done with that for right now. The request from Panzermann for a Type 10 turret has me beat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...when they replaced the Leopard C2 with the Leo2A6M, in Afghanistan they were underwhelmed by the smoothbores HE alternative compared to the effect of the 105mm HESH on the hard structures in the region. I understood they were working on a HESH like round for the smoothbore, but not sure were that is or still alive?

 

Did Canadians get proper multi-mode HE for 120mm or used "HEDP" (read HEAT) for anti-personnel?

 

Smoothbore HESH will not work proper, muzzle velocity is too low for effective long range fin stabilization.

 

 

I can ask but not sure at the moment

Link to post
Share on other sites

swapping out the turret would do many good things, but it would not adress one serious limitation of the challenger, namely the weakened cutout on the front hull behind the drivers hatch.

it would also not adress the extremely weak lower front hull of the challenger, or the limited power of the challenger powerpack.

and personally i think the protection scheme on the challenger 2 turret is good. extremely well sloped front, and flat sides, which reduces front profile and saves weight, the rear turret is really the problem. FCS is quirky, but good enough. gun has to go, but with the russian fielding the Armata, and the Rheinmetall 120 basically having reached it's limit, and also possibly not being able to defeat the armata, a bigger gun might be neccesary, or a new type of top-attack round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that the Perkins Condor CV12 has been tested successfully at 1500HP. No idea how true it is. Any reason why they can't upgrade the powerpacks in the Challenger to 1500HP?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that the Perkins Condor CV12 has been tested successfully at 1500HP. No idea how true it is. Any reason why they can't upgrade the powerpacks in the Challenger to 1500HP?

 

It can likely be done. The question is "Will such an upgrade be funded?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

USMC fuel is JP8, which is similar to kerosene. It does cause added wear in fuel pumps and other tight tolerance parts like injectors, and it starts like crap in the cold.

 

If you need a larger gun, the Abrams turret with the XM291 in 140mm would make as much sense as anything else. There's no good way around the ammunition storage issue. The Abrams has as good a FCS and sensor array as you'll find. S/F....Ken M

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

swapping out the turret would do many good things, but it would not adress one serious limitation of the challenger, namely the weakened cutout on the front hull behind the drivers hatch.

it would also not adress the extremely weak lower front hull of the challenger, or the limited power of the challenger powerpack.

and personally i think the protection scheme on the challenger 2 turret is good. extremely well sloped front, and flat sides, which reduces front profile and saves weight, the rear turret is really the problem. FCS is quirky, but good enough. gun has to go, but with the russian fielding the Armata, and the Rheinmetall 120 basically having reached it's limit, and also possibly not being able to defeat the armata, a bigger gun might be neccesary, or a new type of top-attack round.

 

 

This has a LOT made about it, but Im not sure how it can be a problem. If you fit the TES armour on the front glacis, not only does it thin out the gap in the drivers view (meaning you can only hit the drivers episcope if its coming right at you) but it also significantly reduces the area of the turret ring that can be penetrated. Im not aware its actually ever been penetrated?

 

Weak front lower hull, absolutely spot on. But again, its not as if the TES (and its never going to deploy without this) has not already addressed the issue many years ago.

 

Re limited power, its never really been that evident on demonstration in the UK. The problem was a lot of people came to the conclusion it was gutless in 2003 from the video footage. But as it turns out it was being run on helicopter fuel from a USMC pipeline which not only reduced the power output, it also apparently reduced engine life.

 

As I understand it, running JP8 in an engine that is set up for Diesel will result in about a 13% power loss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

USMC fuel is JP8, which is similar to kerosene. It does cause added wear in fuel pumps and other tight tolerance parts like injectors, and it starts like crap in the cold.

 

There is no "winter fuel" or at least additives for JP-8?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is America. We sodomize all the combat arms to make life easy for the REMF's working banker's hours in a secure environment. S/F....Ken M

 

There was legit DF-2 (no2 diesel) available in limited quantities for the TF IRON CLAW elements, operating the South African anti- IED vehicles. Those were theater wide priority units during OIF-2 and probably later as well. They were independent road sweeping units, complete with organic security, jamming, ground penetrating radar and so forth.

Edited by EchoFiveMike
Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC, the Challenger 2s smoke maker (operated by injecting diesel fuel into the exhaust) also couldn't be operated. I thought I read somewhere that there was fear of it causing a fire. Though that I think may more have been due to having the thermal suppression kit on the exhaust, rather than it being down to fuel reasons.

 

 

I recall hearing the same thing with our vehicles too - that the (at the time recent) switch to JP-8 made the smoke makers unusable due to the fire hazard. I don't think this was an issue with just the Challenger.

 

I specifically remember one of the mechanics 'crop dusting' us in the motor pool with his M-88, laughing like a maniac while he did it. I asked him about it and he said something to the effect that the smoke makers still work, it's just that you can only use them for very short periods of time due to the fuel/fire issue.

 

 

-K

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the turret - what about the K2 turret? Maybe they'd leave out the autoloader if we wanted. Add the essential piece of equipment (a BV) & the job's done!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Abrams has as good a FCS and sensor array as you'll find. S/F....Ken M

 

Not sure about the sensor array part, but the T-14 Armata allegedly has an MMW radar sensor available. Tank FCS that automatically track have been around a while too - IIRC the Merkava has had this from the 3B variant (able to track rotary winged aircraft as well as ground targets) - the Japanese Type 90's FCS auto tracks too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One Type 10 tank can track up to 8 targets and that information is automatically transmitted to the other 3 tanks in the platoon showing up in real time displays. Tracking will continue with predictive solutions if the target is temporarily out of sight. The sensor at the top of the turret actively searches for targets. Targets are identified by the database as tank, AFV, non-armored vehicle, aircraft, etc, and automatically displayed. The FCS will lock-on to not just a target but automatically aim at weak points.

 

http://www.kjclub.com/jp/exchange/photo/read.php?tname=exc_board_53&uid=18239&fid=18239&thread=1000000&idx=1&page=1&number=13790

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stuart, my friend is British, and she told me UK goverment and bureacracy is fucked up but this... this is just briliant! :D

 

But why on earth you would be ok with only 14 main gun rounds in your tank? IMHO makes no sense at all.

Edited by Damian
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...