Challenger 3

Nice....
And the link is?
And the file is?
And the author is?
And the date is?
 
Last edited:
Good feedback folks!

uk 75 Challenger exists and has certain features which suit a country only operating a small number of tanks. It is cheaper to operate than Abrams and more rugged than Leopard.
Click to expand...

Then you've already answered your own question :) Proceed with Challenger 3 upgrades and happily pay the costs of operating a distinct variant with no opportunity for individual replacements. And, in making such a decision, ignore all previous worries re: lack of commonality with NATO allies.


zen Note that Norwegian trials showed little difference between K2 and Leo2. That K2 was cheaper and Leo2 chosen for other political (European) reasons. Even if that will cost Norway more.....and probably arrive late.
Click to expand...

It'd be interesting to know what those "political (European) reasons" were. None of the usual EU pressures apply to Norway. I suspect that a more 'local' parts supply was one issue. Would it have been any different had K2 production already been underway in Poland? Maybe not.

Cost: Not a deal-breaker for a nation with a sovereign wealth fund worth USD 1.4 trillion. But, as other Leopard operators have recently discovered, there are other issues with buying German. For those tempted, I'd suggest a quick look at their Bundessicherheitsrat (Federal Security Council) whose decisions are actually at the whim of the Bundeskanzler (or, in the current case, his Chef des Bundeskanzleramts).

Elan Vital Also seriously, comparing free export to a Ukraine at war with peacetime sales to the UK, a long-time NATO ally?
Click to expand...

The two issues are not unrelated. Whitehall exercised its option to donate Challenger 2s to Ukraine at war. It would not have had that freedom of action as a Leopard operator. As recent events have shown, transferring German-made equipment to Ukraine is a lot more time-consuming and politically-complicated.

Of course, most armaments-making nations put some kind of restrictions on the re-export of such weapons. But most are bureaucratic amateurs compared to the Kriegswaffenkontrollgesetz (Weapons of War Control Act) under the BDR's Außenwirtschaftsgesetz (Foreign Trade Act). (If you're okay with all that red-tape, buy German - my country did).

It matters whether potential foreign suppliers will hamstring re-exports. But it matters to policy-makers not to the military (who, by definition, are losing re-exported assets). So, the real question here is: who is likely to insist upon such stringent controls? We know the Germans will. US FMS is not exactly an easy process either. But what about South Korea or Poland as licencee? It is worth asking.
 
GTX said:

Revealed: First look at UK's Challenger 3 main battle tank prototype - Breaking Defense

“The Challenger 3 program will deliver the best tank in NATO ... and deliver a network enabled, digital main battle tank, providing the soldier with a step changing capability," said Rory Breen, strategy and future business director at RBSL.
breakingdefense.com

IMG_4867-e1705954840202.jpg
Click to expand...

THe image in this article is weirdly distorted. Here's a better version.

1706032968958.png

From:
View: https://twitter.com/Rivet_Counter/status/1749506052717006945
 
Apophenia said:
It'd be interesting to know what those "political (European) reasons" were. None of the usual EU pressures apply to Norway. I suspect that a more 'local' parts supply was one issue. Would it have been any different had K2 production already been underway in Poland? Maybe not.
Click to expand...
There is some stuff out there on Norway's assessments and decisions.
EU and Germany does have a sizable influence on Norwegian politics and politicians.
Fortunately the Norwegian people keep them in check for the moment.

Apophenia said:
Cost: Not a deal-breaker for a nation with a sovereign wealth fund worth USD 1.4 trillion.
Click to expand...
What a statement, I think you will find Norwegians care about value for money just like most people do.
 
BTW one should take care with documents that justify a failure to sell a product to a country.
The people involved have careers on the line potentially for the sums involved.
And should remember how influential lobbying and Party donations can be.

So an American document, describing for other Americans why they failed to get the UK to ditch it's own tank design and production for American tanks....
Is potentially rife with various biases and posturing for personal reasons as much as both the truth and the knowledge this is getting declassified eventually and read by other Americans.

To paraphrase "don't sack me! our kits wonderful obviously, but those pesky Brits opted for lousy domestic (unAmerican) kit just to keep up their lousy industry. Seriously I've got Brits telling me how great our product is and it's only those evil politicians who screwed us out of all that lovely money. Which we obviously deserve!"

It's not like I haven't encountered dubious British 'reports' that are essentially a massive arse covering exercise and some which are structured to justify the authors preference.
 
zen said:
What a statement, I think you will find Norwegians care about value for money just like most people do.
Click to expand...
Right, but it's not like Norway is stuck at UK levels of "we can't afford to actually build a new tank so we're just going to build a new turret".

If the capabilities offered by K2s were seen as attractive enough, Norway could buy a whole lot of them at "Made in Korea and shipped across two oceans" prices, probably $10milUS/tank, not counting spare parts and training costs.
 
If it were sent to any unit without a BV, there would be a mutiny an immediate RTB and heads would roll. I honestly believe that any other liquid than water for the powdered tea (Circa 1943, a gooood vintage) would curdle the next brew which is not good news for the operator who makes it.
 


Write your reply...

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom