Spot Your Country!

[Aaron]

Well that's pretty much what I expected, of the top twenty only five of them are actually of any use. And some of them are among the worst armies in the world, North Korea I'm looking at you.

[sunnyside]

How much of that was R&D which would eventually be recouped? The UN and other multilateral forces often use British-developed mil-spec tech.

Mikey does have a point in that sometimes you can actually make some R&D money back by selling weapons and such to other countries.

However I don't think the UK has been doing so well with this as of late.

Their small arms aren't selling, and I don't think they've had a famous export since the Harrier. Still they do some solid business with their Puma transport helicopters. And there are orders here and there. Kuwaitis getting Warrior AFVs. I think some African countries picked up some challenger 2s. And they often sell off old surface combatants as new models come online.

Part of this is that much development is being done jointly. Reducing the cost, but also reducing the export market potential.

[Captain Seafort]

Their small arms aren't selling

Given the SA80's reputation that's hardly surprising.

And they often sell off old surface combatants as new models come online.

No, these days we sell off our new surface combatants before new ones are ready.

We also sold the Upholder class conventional subs to the Canadians, but that didn't go too well - they'd been laid up for a decade and had serious mechanical problems.

Part of this is that much development is being done jointly. Reducing the cost, but also reducing the export market potential.

That's part of it. Another part is that we're getting more and more reluctant to sell the high-quality kit - it's been enough of a struggle getting the full operating manual for the JSF as it is without having complaints about who we're selling the best tank in the world to.

Another problem is that our R&D these days takes a lot longer and is a lot more expensive than planned - Bowman is notorious for being over time, over budget and underperforming.

[sunnyside]

I'm actually not sure how soon stuff is offered for expoert. The US does fairly brisk business with out F-16 and F-15 varients and especially with our choppers. And we sell some of our infantry weapons as soon as we produce them, I think tanks and such too wich tend to do a lot of business but I think moreso for the cheaper models.

Though I don't think we sold a lot of A10s or possibly any. I'm always surprised we didn't try and ramp their production up for export. You'd think they'd be a popular craft. Cheap, incredibly rugged and reliable, great against rebels. And they've accidently proved themselves as quite capable against even the best British tanks.

[Captain Seafort]

And they've accidently proved themselves as quite capable against even the best British tanks.

Not tanks - armoured reconnaissance vehicles and IFVs.

The only thing that's ever taken out a Challenger is another Challenger.

[sunnyside]

Huh. For some reason I thought one of those incidents was on a challenger either way I'm still surprised other countries weren't interested in the things.

[Aaron]

Huh. For some reason I thought one of those incidents was on a challenger either way I'm still surprised other countries weren't interested in the things.

Probably because it's quite underpowered compared to the M1 and Leo 2 series. Which is no big surprise, British tanks have long favoured protection and firepower at the cost of mobility.

Oh and the disasterous FCS in the Challenger1 probably didn't help.

[Captain Seafort]

Huh. For some reason I thought one of those incidents was on a challenger

There was certainly a blue-on-blue involving a Challenger, but it was another CR2 that was responsible. One was attacked by an entire squadron of Iraqis in the middle of a sandstorm and (understandably, given the circumstances), took a pop at any tank it spotted. Unfortunately one of those targets was another CR2 coming to assist, which was knocked out and two of its crew killed.

[Captain Seafort]

Probably because it's quite underpowered compared to the M1 and Leo 2 series. Which is no big surprise, British tanks have long favoured protection and firepower at the cost of mobility.

Oh and the disasterous FCS in the Challenger1 probably didn't help.

I've heard that the rifled gun is part of the reason as well - most countries are shifting to smoothbore and the rifled barrel apparently causes problems with the ammunition.

[Aaron]

I've heard that the rifled gun is part of the reason as well - most countries are shifting to smoothbore and the rifled barrel apparently causes problems with the ammunition.

Your probably right. A rifled main gun wears out faster than a smoothbore thanks to the high pressures involved, essentially the rifling gets ablated. The Challenger's gun also uses seperate charge and round instead of a all in one like the rest of NATO. The orginal reason for the rifled gun has long since been rendered invalid, they chose it because it offered greater accuracy. With a modern FCS, that's no longer an issue.

[Captain Seafort]

Yeah, the army's planning to replace the Challenger's L30 with a smoothbore, since they're caught up with and surpassed the rifled guns.

[sunnyside]

The Challenger is also a little short in the secondary armament catagory, which is increasingly important in urban and guerrila combat. The main selling point of the tank would seem to be the armor, but that's all sorts of classified and its hard to say how it would match up to the depleted uranium enhanced armor on an Abrams.

But I was actually pondering why the A10 didn't become a popular export. Oh wait. Maybe its main gun isn't so deadly without the depleted uranium penetrator rounds. We might not have been willing to sell those.

[Aaron]

The Challenger is also a little short in the secondary armament catagory, which is increasingly important in urban and guerrila combat. The main selling point of the tank would seem to be the armor, but that's all sorts of classified and its hard to say how it would match up to the depleted uranium enhanced armor on an Abrams.

It's not hard to add an extra mg to the vehicle, the Israeli's have been doing it for years. Most obvious on the old Centurion. The armor on the Challenger 2/M1/Leo 2 are pretty much on the same level, it just differs in composition.

But I was actually pondering why the A10 didn't become a popular export. Oh wait. Maybe its main gun isn't so deadly without the depleted uranium penetrator rounds. We might not have been willing to sell those.

Pretty much everyone has them. Germany refuses to use them for political reasons but there not hard to make if the US won't supply them. Or you could just buy them off the Russians or French, they'll sell to anyone with cash.

[colmquinn]

I thought all current gen NATO MBT's (M1A1,Chieftan2, leopard 2) used the same style armour, I know its only a wiki but it does describe the way things work. Arguements between armies/ governments and chosen development paths etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chobham_armour

[sunnyside]

No, actually the german Leo uses perforated armor. Which really should make it cheaper, but that doesn't seem to be the case in practice. At least not for the modern version of the tank. I imagine they offered good prices on the old 2A4s when then dumped them on the market.

The challenger is also surprisingly expensive.

Or maybe it's that the Abrams is "cheap" due to the larger production run, spreading out research costs and the like.