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.

94 posts in this topic
2 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

ammo capacity is 11 or 17 rounds from what i've read, which likely depends on if it's falcon 1 or 2. 

i'm sure you could improve ammo capacity a bit more by swapping out the revolver mags with a leclerc style autoloader. 

but that's 2 more ready rounds than leopard 2. 

abrams has a secure ammunition storage in the hull, so doing 2 secure ammo storages for the challenger shouldn't be an issue either. put some blowoff panels on the bottom hull or side hull, and there you go. 

 

All of that is possible, I'm sure, but I was looking at things in a "bang for buck" perspective.  The Brits don't have the kind of money that they probably should have for their military.

 

In that sense, the M1 type turret gives you 18 ready with 18 reloads, and the possibility (not simulated in SB, but a very real possibility) to ad-hoc load from the semi-ready rack if you absolutely must keep fighting.  So you're looking at a 36 round ammo load without any form of hull storage.  There's the possibility to do some other form of hull storage solution to be cheap and still squeeze some extra rounds in if that was deemed to be absolutely necessary.

 

IF a turret swap like this is indeed feasible, then if I were making the M1 turret I would try to put together an upgrade package emphasizing high benefit for low cost.  I would pander to the British politicians and public by finding a way to keep them involved in the project.  For example, build the turrets here in the US, ship them to the UK for fitment to the Challenger 2 hull, and do any required hull upgrades in the UK.

 

And then take the old Chally 2 turrets and send them to Estonia or some place to be dug in on their border with Russia into concrete bunkers, like the Swiss Centibunker.  Mostly just to piss off Putin.

 

centurion_bunker.jpg

 

 

I'm not suggesting that this is the best solution.  Indeed, unmanned or other low-profile turrets like the Falcon 1/2 turret may be the wave of the future.  Perhaps the best solution to a Chally 2 upgrade is to try to make a technological leap forward and do something completely new. 

 

However, if I had to make the choice between getting an upgrade in the future using technology that hasn't yet been really proven in a fight, or getting an upgrade in the near term using technology that has been tried and tested...

 

Well...If I ever have to play Steel Beasts as a Brit, I'd much rather have a chimera of an M1A1/HA turret slapped onto a Challenger 2 hull, knowing that at least my gun would be effective, than to have a vanilla Challenger 2...

Edited by Maj.Hans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mostly just to piss off Putin

 

Just what the world need right now, good grief :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

@dejawolf

The question is, where you find space in Challenger 1/2 hull for isolated ammo storage? I mean it's possible yeah, but you need to replace engine for something more compact like MT883, unless it would be in front on both sides of the driver but then again, I am kinda not a fan of storing ammo at front.

IMHO for UK the best would be just to say goodbye to Challenger 2 and take M1A2SEPv3's, heck the deal could be made to build them as completely new in the UK.

If General Dynamics could open Ajax factory in UK, they can open factory for M1A2SEPv3's, just like in Egypt they builded factory no.200 in Cairo, an exact copy of Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio.

Edited by Damian90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, 12Alfa said:

Mostly just to piss off Putin

 

Just what the world need right now, good grief :(

 

I happen to like his stance on terrorism...You know, the whole part about killing them instead of supporting them like Zero did...

But he did sort of carjack Crimea from the Ukraine...

 

Russia has always envied the Baltic states, after all, they invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, AND Poland (yet somehow "Germany" started WW2 by invading Poland...) and I think that certain countries like Estonia might actually benefit somewhat from a concept as archaic as tank turrets in concrete bunkers.

Actually since Esti has no tanks at all, probably Leopard1A5s or 2A4s would be welcome...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

All of that is possible, I'm sure, but I was looking at things in a "bang for buck" perspective.  The Brits don't have the kind of money that they probably should have for their military.

 

The UK is ranked fifth in the world when it comes to defence spending it spends more then any other European nation.

Whether it spends is wisely is another mater.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Marko said:

The UK is ranked fifth in the world when it comes to defence spending it spends more then any other European nation.

Whether it spends is wisely is another mater.

 

Naturally you have to keep the real projects on a shoestring budget to make room for all the waste and fraud!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Damian90 said:

@dejawolf

The question is, where you find space in Challenger 1/2 hull for isolated ammo storage? I mean it's possible yeah, but you need to replace engine for something more compact like MT883, unless it would be in front on both sides of the driver but then again, I am kinda not a fan of storing ammo at front.

IMHO for UK the best would be just to say goodbye to Challenger 2 and take M1A2SEPv3's, heck the deal could be made to build them as completely new in the UK.

If General Dynamics could open Ajax factory in UK, they can open factory for M1A2SEPv3's, just like in Egypt they builded factory no.200 in Cairo, an exact copy of Joint Systems Manufacturing Center in Lima, Ohio.

 

left and right side of driver yeah. then add some water around it to reduce chance of flare-up, and ++ front hull protection. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

12 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

 

All of that is possible, I'm sure, but I was looking at things in a "bang for buck" perspective.  The Brits don't have the kind of money that they probably should have for their military.

 

In that sense, the M1 type turret gives you 18 ready with 18 reloads, and the possibility (not simulated in SB, but a very real possibility) to ad-hoc load from the semi-ready rack if you absolutely must keep fighting.  So you're looking at a 36 round ammo load without any form of hull storage.  There's the possibility to do some other form of hull storage solution to be cheap and still squeeze some extra rounds in if that was deemed to be absolutely necessary.

 

IF a turret swap like this is indeed feasible, then if I were making the M1 turret I would try to put together an upgrade package emphasizing high benefit for low cost.  I would pander to the British politicians and public by finding a way to keep them involved in the project.  For example, build the turrets here in the US, ship them to the UK for fitment to the Challenger 2 hull, and do any required hull upgrades in the UK.

 

I'm not suggesting that this is the best solution.  Indeed, unmanned or other low-profile turrets like the Falcon 1/2 turret may be the wave of the future.  Perhaps the best solution to a Chally 2 upgrade is to try to make a technological leap forward and do something completely new. 

 

However, if I had to make the choice between getting an upgrade in the future using technology that hasn't yet been really proven in a fight, or getting an upgrade in the near term using technology that has been tried and tested...

 

Well...If I ever have to play Steel Beasts as a Brit, I'd much rather have a chimera of an M1A1/HA turret slapped onto a Challenger 2 hull, knowing that at least my gun would be effective, than to have a vanilla Challenger 2...

 

cost-wise i think the falcon 2 turret would win as well. jordan has a low GDP per capita compared to the US,meaning cheap labour, and the smaller profile of the falcon turret reduces manufacturing costs of armour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Armor is cheap.

It's the electronics, and system integration that is costly. And from what I'm hearing, that's exactly where the Falcon project is mired.

 

I think that a move towards unmanned turrets is somewhat unavoidable in order to keep the overall system weight manageable while maintaining or improving on armor protection. But make no mistake, it is a huge challenge to maintain or improve the situational awareness with such a vehicle concept over a traditional turret, and to make operating the vehicle safe on public streets during peacetime. The technology seems to be there, at least in principle, but actually making it work - well, I think we can look at the Puma IFV for the German Bundeswehr to see if the trade-off is worth it and if the required technology is mature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dejawolf said:

 

cost-wise i think the falcon 2 turret would win as well. jordan has a low GDP per capita compared to the US,meaning cheap labour, and the smaller profile of the falcon turret reduces manufacturing costs of armour. 

Did the jordanians reengineer the CR-1 turret to make the Falcon turret do you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Damian90 said:

IMHO for UK the best would be just to say goodbye to Challenger 2 and take M1A2SEPv3's, heck the deal could be made to build them as completely new in the UK.

 

 

With a Diesel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hedgehog said:

 

 

With a Diesel.

 

Of course, the diesel engine solution is there, it's actually ready for implementation, the only thing needed is decision, that's all. And I think US Army might do this decision sooner, than later, considering latest developments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Marko said:

Did the jordanians reengineer the CR-1 turret to make the Falcon turret do you know.

i don't think they did, the CR-1 FCS is the absolute worst, it looks like they went for a different FCS, which seems to have received upgrades over time. 

 

falcons.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

5 minutes ago, dejawolf said:

i don't think they did, the CR-1 FCS is the absolute worst, it looks like they went for a different FCS, which seems to have received upgrades over time. 

 

falcons.jpg

 

Thanks DeJawolf.

 

Did they purchase Chobham armour or use a different armour material. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Marko said:

 

Thanks DeJawolf.

 

Did they purchase Chobham armour or use a different armour material. 

 

 

unknown, but they probably have chobham-armour knowledge from prying open one of their challenger 1s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

If they copied Burlington type armor from circa first half of 1980's, then their armor is not latest tech. Not bad, but nothing special either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2016 at 8:10 PM, Maj.Hans said:

 

I happen to like his stance on terrorism...You know, the whole part about killing them instead of supporting them like Zero did...

But he did sort of carjack Crimea from the Ukraine...

 

Russia has always envied the Baltic states, after all, they invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, AND Poland (yet somehow "Germany" started WW2 by invading Poland...) and I think that certain countries like Estonia might actually benefit somewhat from a concept as archaic as tank turrets in concrete bunkers.

Actually since Esti has no tanks at all, probably Leopard1A5s or 2A4s would be welcome...

 

I happen to like his stance on terrorism, and I share you wisdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

On 11/9/2016 at 1:10 AM, Maj.Hans said:

 

 

 

Russia has always envied the Baltic states, after all, they invaded Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, AND Poland (yet somehow "Germany" started WW2 by invading Poland...) and I think that certain countries like Estonia might actually benefit somewhat from a concept as archaic as tank turrets in concrete bunkers.

Actually since Esti has no tanks at all, probably Leopard1A5s or 2A4s would be welcome...

Fixed defenses are to easily overcome with precision weapons to effective.

If your Opfor has modern weapons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Marko said:

Fixed defenses are to easily overcome with precision weapons to effective.

If your Opfor has modern weapons. 

 

Oh I completely agree.

 

But since Estonia has "next to nothing" to defend itself with, surplus Challenger 2 turrets dropped onto concrete bunkers would be "better than nothing", and the alternative at the moment seems to be "nothing".

 

In a real war they'd probably get blotted out pretty quick, but even if their primary purpose is to be abandoned in the event of war and left to attract Russian enemy (I mean, it could be somebody else besides Russia...lol!) bombs that could otherwise be dropped on something of real value, they made a contribution.

 

ETA: I Suppose the other way to look at this, is that the country most likely to invade Estonia is Russia...And they would most likely do it in such an overpowering way that before we knew it was starting, we would be seeing Kremlin news broadcasts from Tallinn talking about the popular people's uprising that sprang up out of nowhere, complete with a bunch of T-72BM3's that they just found laying around, to overthrow the government and join Russia.

 

So why bother to fight when you'll just get shellacked anyway?

Edited by Maj.Hans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Maj.Hans said:

But since Estonia has "next to nothing" to defend itself with, surplus Challenger 2 turrets dropped onto concrete bunkers would be "better than nothing", and the alternative at the moment seems to be "nothing".

 

 

Estonia has a lot of forested areas.  Maybe more Javelin/RPG-armed jaeger-type units would offer a bigger bang for the buck?

Edited by MDF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MDF said:

 

Estonia has a lot of forested areas.  Maybe more Javelin/RPG-armed jaeger-type units would offer a bigger bang for the buck?

 

That's probably true.  I was thinking that dug in Challenger 2 turrets could be used as, essentially, dug in artillery for a short period, until it got fixed and bombed to bits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well the total cost goes down and becomes more palatable if you are only upgrading two Regiments worth.

 

I suspect the cost per unit will go up though.

 

Edited by Gibsonm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

Well the total cost goes down and becomes more palatable if you are only upgrading two Regiments worth.

 

I suspect the cost per unit will go up though.

 

I suppose the theory is two regiments of modern capable tanks is worth more then three or four regiments of less capable tanks.

Watched a very interesting interview on the BBC news last night by a recently retired senior British army general.

He was being very diplomatic but he stated clearly the British army needs to modernism some of its conventional equipment quickly.

Well worth a viewing 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04mns63

 

 

Its a shame he did not make his case more aggressively when he was a serving senior officer.

I suppose its career suicide to rock the boat like most large organisations The out spoken very rarely progress.

 

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