Welcome to Steelbeasts.com

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Tjay

Upgrading the CR2.

98 posts in this topic

Hopefully a new FCS for the gunner and how about a smoothbore 120mm,OR better ammo.Iprefer the T72 FCS over the CR2 in SBPPE,lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately it says the initial upgrade will not involve the replacement of the gun or the power pack (as if the article knows exactly what its main weaknesses are). :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you serious ? :confused:

lol,yes,the little dot(reticule) drives me crazy.Im speaking in a gunnery posistion strctly,not overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the article makes clear, upgrading the CR2 - described by some as 'a cold war relic' to modern(ish) standards is going to be extremely, err, challenging - which is a euphemism for very expensive and time consuming. Political considerations apart, the more sensible route would seem to be to scrap it and buy the latest version of the Leo or even the M1A2. Or maybe the Leclerc; that would be a politically astute move IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The UK should buy the M1A3 if it ever hits production.I think the next gen of MBT are gonna be unmanned quite possibly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As the article makes clear, upgrading the CR2 - described by some as 'a cold war relic' to modern(ish) standards is going to be extremely, err, challenging - which is a euphemism for very expensive and time consuming. Political considerations apart, the more sensible route would seem to be to scrap it and buy the latest version of the Leo or even the M1A2. Or maybe the Leclerc; that would be a politically astute move IMHO.

Never happen.

Tanks are like submarines.

If you want to have any world wide political clout you design your own tank.

Its a pride thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never happen.

Tanks are like submarines.

If you want to have any world wide political clout you design your own tank.

Its a pride thing.

World-wide political clout. George Osborne. Austerity. Balancing the budget. Gonna be tricky. :c:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there was an improved version built for export.

The Challenger 2E is an export version of the tank. It has a new integrated weapon control and battlefield management system, which includes a gyrostabilised panoramic SAGEM MVS 580-day/thermal sight for the commander and SAGEM SAVAN 15 gyrostabilised day/thermal sight for the gunner, both with eyesafe laser rangefinder. This allows hunter/killer operations with a common engagement sequence. An optional servo-controlled overhead weapons platform can be slaved to the commander's sight to allow operation independent from the turret.

The power pack has been replaced by a new 1,500 hp (1,100 kW) EuroPowerPack with transversely mounted MTU MT 883 diesel engine coupled to Renk HSWL 295TM automatic transmission. The increase in vehicle performance is significant. The smaller volume but more powerful power pack incorporates as standard a cooling system and air-intake filtration system proved in desert use. The free space in the hull is available for ammunition stowage or for fuel, increasing the vehicle's range to 550 km (340 mi).

Or just replace the turret With a M1A2 turret or the leo-2A7/Leclerc

20160122_195523_resized.jpg.5057a00a9e6d

20160122_195523_resized.jpg.5057a00a9e6d

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or just replace the turret With a M1A2 turret or the leo-2A7/Leclerc

Well its a bit more complex than that given:

1. CR2's current two piece ammunition - with flow on issues re storage in the hull, etc.

2. RAC's desire to maintain HESH - which requires a rifled gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Well its a bit more complex than that given:

1. CR2's current two piece ammunition - with flow on issues re storage in the hull, etc.

2. RAC's desire to maintain HESH - which requires a rifled gun.

You are correct, that's why god created engineers or was it the devil.

:clin:

But it may be a cheaper option then a new build, or ripping the current CR-2 turret apart and reengineering it from scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting update on the Challenger 2 Life Extension Programme and the fact it is, apparently consciously, the British Army's fourth vehicle programme priority after Ajax, Warrior and the new eight-wheeled Mechanised Infantry Vehicle (MIV): http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/eurosatory/2016/06/13/contenders-emerge-british-tank-upgrade-program/85652380/

 

Poor Challenger 2.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 1/21/2016 at 2:09 PM, mpow66m said:

The UK should buy the M1A3 if it ever hits production.I think the next gen of MBT are gonna be unmanned quite possibly.

Just why would a tank  designing nation (the first)  buy from the US?

The Challenger2 is still able to go toe to toe with most MBT's, except for a very few (and their all NATO) what tank do you see that would be a issue that they would have to disregard their tank design and production to buy from the US.

They have no history from the Centurian that they bought US tanks, why now?

I would think a new turret would solve the issue with the gun/ammo for far less that a rebuilt m1 to A2 standard, might as well rebuild the CR2 with a new turret and save jobs and the industry, unless one wants to export jobs to the US, which doesn't sound all that great for the workers(see voters) in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

In My fantasy opinion, all NATO nations would have the exact same tank, and ammo.  Same uniforms, same rifles, same rations, same ROE, same communications, same doctrine. Everything except maybe a small patch on the shoulder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

They should definitely have the same ammunition and ideally as much parts compatibility as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

2 hours ago, Brun said:

In My fantasy opinion, all NATO nations would have the exact same tank, and ammo.  Same uniforms, same rifles, same rations, same ROE, same communications, same doctrine. Everything except maybe a small patch on the shoulder. 

 

Well they had that briefly a while ago when the L7 105mm was the standard.

 

But even then we had 7.62mm vs 5.56mm, etc.

 

Unless you have just one organisation (like the people to your East) then there will always be variations in the "standard", to the point where the standard isn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

18 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

Just why would a tank  designing nation (the first)  buy from the US?

 

Nations do not have a hive mind that stores know-how. People and organizations know (or no longer know) how to design and manufacture complex equipment like an MBT or IFV. If the industrial know-how is gone (not saying that it is, just that it appears rather likely) then rebuilding that know-how is going to be

a) very costly

b) result in a first design that is more likely than not sub-par

 

Alvis and Vickers? Gone.

Royal Ordnance? Gone. Rheinmetall is now manufacturing the Challenger's APFSDS rounds in Unterlüß.

 

Hägglunds (as a part of BAE)? Maybe. Their focus is the CV90 family.

Note however who did NOT win the contract for Ajax; General Dynamics did.

This all doesn't bode well for the chances of a successful domestic MBT development in the UK. The 1980s design decision to go for a 120mm rifled tank gun doomed the entire tank industry in the UK. 20 years later it's an industrial wasteland (as far as (heavy) military land vehicles are concerned). The rather irrational decision to pull out of the MRAV/Boxer program was another serious mistake. At some point there are consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that being said they (the British industry) are still building sub and warships, so some industrial tech/workforce/ production is still there. And if a nation want to build anything bad enough they find a way as in the past.

 

We are lead to believe that once one stops building something all is lost. I'm call BS on this one. History has proven this to be a falsehood, and more likely linked to  (certain defense firms) that have a vested interest in tell the policy makers that  they have lost the ability to produce a certain product and they have the only answer, of course mp's being the retards that they are follow this policy, when their own industry leaders tell a very different story.

 

My country thinks we can't make our own planes and must buy the F-35. Why ?

 Because the great minds in government say we lost our ability, although we have a huge airplane industry selling worldwide, and in fact are making parts for the same F-35 as well as many parts for the US aircraft industry, not to say  some parts for the FCS in the M1.

Lost the ability, don't thinks so.

 

But we are lead to believe we can't produce a aircraft for our needs (we did at one time ) is just plain BS, I think the UK is in a similar boat. Countries don't lose the ability, they are told they have lost them, schools are still turning out engineers and trades people,and there are some smart people out there still. The governments are trying to take the easy way out by buying abroad (see USA) and killing there workforce due to lame excuses and pure stupidly, mine is no exception to this lunacy.

 

So my point if I lost it, was the UK as well as other countries have the ability, the will is lacking.

It may be very costly in the sort term (brain cells in government) , but in the long run is the right path to follow if jobs, mindset (hell yes we can), production, and self reliant are your priorities for you country.

 

If I offended any one, just move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

I see your point alfa

But I think the UK should licence build or buy of the shelf be it the M1A2/3 or put some money in to the new German design.

although this has not worked out well in the past. IE the Eurofighter

Ssnake is right building from scratch is just to expensive.

The UK has more important domestic priority's to spend tens of billions  on a new design.

I also agree NATO affiliated country's should standardise equipment when ever possible

But seriously doubt it will happen.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your not building from scratch , remember the MK1?, the Centurion, chieftian, challey 1?

You have the longest history of tank building, and very little history of buying "off the shelf" 

A new design yes, but a new turret and gun -no.

So go with a rebuilt M1 (most likely same $$ as a rebuilt cr2) and call it a good deal, loose the workforce, loose the jobs,factories, and the votes for what, a easy way out that in the long run gains the UK nothing but a rebuilt M1( hope you have the logistic in place for the fuel) that will eventually have to be replaced by another imported tank due to loosing all the tools needed to produce another tank, ok I see your point......

People need to think beyond today like our for fathers did, look at the mess we are in, like it?

 

And standardization is a myth, countries in NATO are, and have , and are going to continue, to do what they want, a prime example is all of NATO is metric except for you know who, the most vocal of "we need to standardize"

We have had a decade of trying to sort this out, how has it worked out........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

13 hours ago, 12Alfa said:

Well that being said they (the British industry) are still building sub and warships, so some industrial tech/workforce/ production is still there. And if a nation want to build anything bad enough they find a way as in the past.

 

We are lead to believe that once one stops building something all is lost. I'm call BS on this one. History has proven this to be a falsehood, and more likely linked to  (certain defense firms) that have a vested interest in tell the policy makers that  they have lost the ability to produce a certain product and they have the only answer, of course mp's being the retards that they are follow this policy, when their own industry leaders tell a very different story.

 

My country thinks we can't make our own planes and must buy the F-35. Why ?

 Because the great minds in government say we lost our ability, although we have a huge airplane industry selling worldwide, and in fact are making parts for the same F-35 as well as many parts for the US aircraft industry, not to say  some parts for the FCS in the M1.

Lost the ability, don't thinks so.

 

But we are lead to believe we can't produce a aircraft for our needs (we did at one time ) is just plain BS, I think the UK is in a similar boat. Countries don't lose the ability, they are told they have lost them, schools are still turning out engineers and trades people,and there are some smart people out there still. The governments are trying to take the easy way out by buying abroad (see USA) and killing there workforce due to lame excuses and pure stupidly, mine is no exception to this lunacy.

 

So my point if I lost it, was the UK as well as other countries have the ability, the will is lacking.

It may be very costly in the sort term (brain cells in government) , but in the long run is the right path to follow if jobs, mindset (hell yes we can), production, and self reliant are your priorities for you country.

 

If I offended any one, just move on.

Alfa I would agree with your key points.

But the reality is the UK is no longer at the forefront when it comes to industrial manufacturing

Yes will still make a lot of cars but that's about it.

The last couple of big steel mills are closing there not even owned by UK company's there owned by a Indian consortium.

Despite politicians posturing there more interested in city financing banking and property development at one time the UK biggest employer out side the NHS

Was MacDonald's I too would love to see the UK/Europe even, be the industrial power house it once was.

Even if the UK spent the funds needed can it be justified on maybe a couple of hundred Turrets/tanks when the money is desperately needed in other areas

Like the NHS education etc. that's why I think they should buy of the shelf.

 .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, UK effectively lost any capability to design and manufacture MBT's at this point. Reclaiming that capability would be very expensive.

 

On the other hand may I remind that initially as Chieftain/Challenger 1 replacement, the only vehicle that meet most requirements of British Army was... M1A1, and all requirements would be meet by M1A2 that was still in development phase when British Army was making trails.

 

An M1A2SEPv3 with a diesel engine, that again I remind was integrated and tested with M1 not so long ago, and tests were successfull, can pretty much meet all requirements of British Army. Also M1 have a hull designed to use various different suspension systems without any modifications, you just unbolt old torsion bars suspensions system and bolt on hydropneumatic suspension system if you wish to do so.

 

And again M1A2SEPv3 have some advantages over Challenger 2:

 

1. Newer more modern armor package for turret and hull front.

2. Redesigned hull and turret structure for better IED and overall survivability.

3. Newer electronics, fire control system and sights.

4. Additional side protection is obtained by modern ERA kit, Challenger 2's newer addon armor package also uses what it seems to be very similiar ERA for side protection.

5. Full main gun ammunition isolation in turret and hull isolated ammo compartments with blow off panels, for superior survivability.

6. M1A2SEPv3 as per US Army requirements will be equipped with active protection system with near future, again improved survivability, US Army and USMC already started tests with such systems on their existing currently most modern in service versions.

7. British Army would share the same logistics chain with US Army for lower costs. For example powerpack, US Army plans to replace existing powerpack and perhaps suspension with new ones (diesel and hydropneumatic suspension system perhaps, or even more avanced diesel-electric powerpack) within ECP3 upgrades package.

8. M1 will have a superior firepower over Challenger 2 due to use of a smoothbore gun which can fire APFSDS ammo at higher pressures + British Army would gain access for both DU/Tungsten APFSDS ammo with greater penetration (I am sure US would sell UK M829A4 APFSDS) + a new programmable HE round with 3 modes of operation, detonate on impact, delay/armor piercing and airburst, the round is developed under AMP (Advanced Multipurpose) program and codenamed XM1069/XM1147, and offers greater capabilities than HESH, even in defeating older tanks, during tests XM1069 in delay/armor piercing mode pierced side turret armor of a T-55 and exploded inside.

 

Also we might assume that if UK would sign a deal with US, GDLS would build a maintnance/manufacturing plant in UK if British goverment would want to, or use for such purpose their new plant intended for Ajax family of vehicles.

As for future MBT's, both designed in Europe or US, this is still far ahead future, M1A2SEPv3 have advantage over these future tanks projects that it exists, an pretty much meets all requirements of British Army, especially concerning safety and survivability, while it's design and avaiable upgrade options can meet less significant requirements like diesel engine instead of gas turbine.

 

We can see the same analogy with AH-64's in British Army service. The initial license version WAH-64/Apache Mk1 was a bad choice in a long term due to different components and logistics chain, in the end British Army will convert them or purchase new AH-64E's to share logistics chain with US Army and thus reduce service life costs (and purchase costs) and increase interoperability with US Army.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Marko said:

Still think the best option is for the UK to invest in the new German MBT project.

 

Edited by Marko

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