It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Challenger tank : game over ?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   


BAE Systems Land Systems has confirmed that it has no plans to promote its Challenger 2E main battle tank (MBT) for foreign sales, despite reports only a year ago that export customers were being sought.

The news will come as no surprise to industry analysts who have long suspected that the Challenger 2E programme was unlikely to proceed after it failed to win the Hellenic Army's competition for a new MBT in 2002.

The withdrawal of Challenger 2E from the active export market may well signify the end of new MBT building in the UK.

BAe will now focus on the UK's proposed Future Rapid Effects System (FRES).

All work on the Challenger 2E ceased, following six years of development, after it failed to win the Hellenic Army's MBT competition.

The tank has attracted little serious interest since the Greek bid failed.

Source


The end of the road for a great tank


However it'll make way for a better system




posted on May, 21 2005 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Leopard 2 A6 GR rules


I think it was the right decision, Leopard 2 is now almost the standard tank in europe, Danmark, Sweden

Sorry, but why do you expect it has a chance, just watch the tests in Sweden:
They tested M1A2Abrams, Leopard2A5(actual version is A6M) and AMX-Leclerc,
that were:
38 maneuverability trials
40 shooting and surveillance trials
18 survival trials
6 commanding trials
15 trustiness/availability/corrective maintenance trials
6 schooling trials
21 other trials with at all 148 intensive tests per exemplar.

Here what came out, which is the optimal and most effektive:

Leo 2A5 : 91 % (A6 or A6M wasnt tested, which would have better armour and a by far stronger cannon, and the L55 cannon will be able to shoot more kinds ofa mmonation and be more effective)
M1A2 : 86 %
Leclerc: 63 %

The Leo 2 needed on a range of 3730 kilometers, 26864 liters of fuel, the availability was 90%

M1 analog 3820 km, 56488 liters of fuel and 87 % availibilty.

Leclerc 3000 km, 41400 and 75 %.



Leopard 1 users:
Italiy
Greece
Belgium
Nederlands
Canada
Australia
Norway
Danmark
Brasilia
Chile
Turkey

Leo 2 users:
Central Europe:
Germany
Nederlands
Switzerland
Austria

Southern Europe:
Spain
Greece

Scandinaiva:
Norway
Finland
Danmark
Sweden

Eastern Europe:
Poland


Challenger was a good competitor in greece, but as the other western european countries use Leopard tanks (besides of UK, France and Italy) it was a clear thing...


[edit on 21-5-2005 by Wodan]



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wodan
Leopard 2 A6 GR rules



You can say that again.

The difference is German engineering



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
unless the Chally uses a smoothbore main cannon, there is really no hope of foreign sales


M6D

posted on May, 21 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
i believe if the chally did use a 120 smoothbore then it would most likely be the best tank out there



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
The Challenger 2 has already been fielded, so it's not the end of the road, it's simply the end of the road of production of MBT's in Britain, they already have enough for their own purposes, this is most DEFINITLY not the end of this great thank, just isn't being exported though.

Don't blow this out of proportions.

The Leopard 2A6 is an excellent tank, I personally prefer the Leopard 2S STRV-122 which is much more advanced than the A6.

How many Challie 2's does the English army have now? I'm sure they have enough, I highly doubt they will have no modern MBT's anymore, they are one of the best tank builders on the planet.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I think that the era of a main battle tank being an asset to winning wars is coming to a close now. They can easily be defeated by modern anti tank weapons that cost a fraction of what the tank costs. Lets not waste anymore money on tanks and invest in weapons that cant be easily knocked out.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 07:52 PM
link   
It basically comes down to the Challengers incompability with the nato standards.

As an individual tank it rates above the Leapord in terms of capability...

I assure you though it's not the end of MBT production in the UK... what they mean is the COMPLETE construction of a tank in the UK.

Exports are important to a companies future endevours and thus a more profitable tank would include parts from other countries.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   
I potentionally will be a crew member of a Leopard 2A5 or A6 soon, I am applying for a position and there seems to be good hope I will be sellected for this job if I qualify, the biggest concern to be is the physical exam for the army, i'm not too concerned about the other exams.

It would be a shame if I joined up for a job that be out-dated soon, fortunatly, Terrorist don't have advanced ATGMs these days and the same argument could be used to counter the abilities of Aircraft, wouldn't attack helicopters be at their end of their period because they can be taken down by a RPG that's cost only a FRACTION of the helicopter? what about a SAM VS a fighter? you get my point.

I think there will be systems developed to shoot down ATGMs before they hit like on the FCS.



posted on May, 22 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I potentionally will be a crew member of a Leopard 2A5 or A6 soon, I am applying for a position and there seems to be good hope I will be sellected for this job if I qualify, the biggest concern to be is the physical exam for the army, i'm not too concerned about the other exams.

It would be a shame if I joined up for a job that be out-dated soon, fortunately, Terrorist don't have advanced ATGMs these days and the same argument could be used to counter the abilities of Aircraft, wouldn't attack helicopters be at their end of their period because they can be taken down by a RPG that's cost only a FRACTION of the helicopter? what about a SAM VS a fighter? you get my point.

I think there will be systems developed to shoot down ATGMs before they hit like on the FCS.

Hope you get your job but i think you will be a dead person in a real war. Mobile tank busters have improved over the last few years , i think you would need shields like on Star trek to save you.



posted on May, 23 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bulldog 52

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I potentionally will be a crew member of a Leopard 2A5 or A6 soon, I am applying for a position and there seems to be good hope I will be sellected for this job if I qualify, the biggest concern to be is the physical exam for the army, i'm not too concerned about the other exams.

It would be a shame if I joined up for a job that be out-dated soon, fortunately, Terrorist don't have advanced ATGMs these days and the same argument could be used to counter the abilities of Aircraft, wouldn't attack helicopters be at their end of their period because they can be taken down by a RPG that's cost only a FRACTION of the helicopter? what about a SAM VS a fighter? you get my point.

I think there will be systems developed to shoot down ATGMs before they hit like on the FCS.

Hope you get your job but i think you will be a dead person in a real war. Mobile tank busters have improved over the last few years , i think you would need shields like on Star trek to save you.



Nice....really nice!


RAB

posted on May, 23 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
the 2E was the export version, the UK will continue to upgrade are build MBT's for years to come. But the next big or little thing is the Future Rapid Effects system.

But I'm sure Bae have plans for the challenge 3 should it ever be needed! Have also seen plans to add brimstone missiles to the Challenger 2, I'll find the document.

RAB

[edit on 23-5-2005 by RAB]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 08:13 AM
link   
GroundZero,

I think you will find that the English Army has no MBTs at all.

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Is that a joke ^


The Uk has one of the most heavily armoured and mechanised millitaries in the world... leading the word for 50 years in tank design (centurion, chieftan, challenger etc)

It's relatively small size means that it is very well equipped.

EDIT: and it's the "british army"... not the english army.

England is just one country in the UK



[edit on 25-5-2005 by Lucretius]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Lucretious,

In your edit you touched on the point I was making. A previous poster had asked how many tanks the English Army had and I was answering that.

Cheers

BHR

[edit on 25-5-2005 by BillHicksRules]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Damn... you got me



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Luc,

Do not worry, mate.

Most of the time my pedantic sarcasm is missed by even those closest to me.

LOL

Cheers

BHR



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:24 AM
link   
BHR, you got the lead!


Though this has been endlessly debated, I don't think that's chally's 2 swan song... Challengers still have good time forward! As the other western MBT's have.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
Is that a joke ^


The Uk has one of the most heavily armoured and mechanised millitaries in the world... leading the word for 50 years in tank design (centurion, chieftan, challenger etc)

It's relatively small size means that it is very well equipped.


we could compare with weak countrys like france or germany on your heavy equipment:

Germany:
850 Leopard II (active) 1.552 Leopard II(stocked)
573 Leopard I (stocked)
1030 Fuchs APCs (different jobs, as example the Anti-NBC version you also have)
408 Luchs recon-tank
202 Fennek wheeled recon vehicle
144 Dingo All Protection Vehicle
388 Mungo light paratrooper-vehicle
16 Duro III
209 LARS
21 LIV(SO)
over 4000 upgraded M113 (soon be replaced by the Boxer APC)
468 Wiesel paratrooper-tanks
408 FlakPz Gepard
140 FlaRakPz Roland
185 PzH2000 155mm self propelled howitzer
570 M109 (active)
506 M109 (stocked)
2.136 Marder IFV (soon be replaced by the Puma IFV)
154 MARS(germanized MLRS)
199 Bv 206



France
245 LeClerc
614 AMX-30 (stocked)
710 AMX-10 IFV
65 VBCI
3900 VAB
132 AMX-10 recon
192 ERC-90
899 VBL
200 VBL long version
72 CAESAR 155mm (theyll get them in 2006)
70 AUF 2 155mm
172 AUF 1 AT 155mm
105 TRF 1 - 155mm
61 MLRS

and now

UK:
256 Challanger 2 active
130 Challanger 2 stocked
108 Viking
1.100 FV432
590 AT 105 Saxon
736 MCV 80 Fv 510 Warrior
192 FV 107 Scimitar
127 Sabre
48 FV 102 CVR (T) Striker Swingfire
520,AFV 103 Spartan
Sultan ?
Samson ?
Samaritan ?
10 anti-NBC Fox
180 Panzerhaubitze (AS90) 155mm
60 Geschütze (Light Gun) 105mm
63 Multiple Rocket Launcher (227mm MLRS)


so now compare them, germany and france arent really strong armed nations, still UK hasnt much compared to them, so why do you think you have "one of the most heavily armoured and mechanised millitaries in the world"

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Wodan]



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Wodan,

Two points to make:

1) What is the source for those figures? I am not disputing them, would just like to know where you got them.

2) Compare the 3 countries on population, area and geographical locality to the Cold War border. Do not forget to take into consideration ease of land access from ex-USSR.

Cheers

BHR




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join