The Ministry of Defence says it has made “significant progress” in exploring export opportunities linked to the Challenger 3 tank programme, but has declined to provide further detail.

In a written answer to Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said: “The Department continues to explore opportunities for the export of Challenger 3 capabilities with significant progress made to date.” However, Pollard added that the government would not disclose specifics, stating: “Providing further detail at this time would compromise commercial sensitivities.”

The response follows previous parliamentary questions about whether the UK is actively seeking international customers for Challenger 3, which is being developed as the British Army’s next-generation main battle tank upgrade.

It’s still unclear which countries, if any, are seriously looking at Challenger 3 as a future tank option. No prospective customer has been publicly identified, and there have been no announcements suggesting a formal sales campaign is under way.

That uncertainty reflects the reality that Challenger 3 is a highly specific capability, shaped around British Army requirements and the UK’s industrial approach to upgrades and support. Export interest would very likely depend on whether potential buyers see value in that model, and whether the tank fits with their own priorities on interoperability, sustainment, and future European armoured programmes.

For now, the language used by ministers suggests the UK is actively sounding out opportunities, but the picture remains very opaque.

George Allison
George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

132 COMMENTS

  2. I thought the Challenger 3 was just an upgrade to the existing Challenger 2’s? Basically a new/upgraded turrent with a few other upgrades. Doesn’t this limit our exports to the number of existing Challenger 2 tanks we already have? It doesn’t seem like we have enough tanks for ourselves, I don’t think we can afford to sell any to other countries.

                • People were mentioning Jordanian Challenger 1 but as far as I can find the turret ring would need substantial rework! Rhienmettal did make that claim though so who knows? They also said the jigs for hulls still exist so new ones could be made if required😀

                    • No bother mate I’m basically in agreement with you,as you say it’s all been discussed in other threads. I just don’t see why it’s ok for other nations to upgrade their existing designs but when we do it it’s considered a disaster😀

                  • Re the Jigs,i posted this to Grinch on the previous thread,i had read that they did survive,residing at Pearson Engineering ( Armstrong Works ).When RBSL was set up at Telford they were transferred there,but subsequently a Rationalisation of Assets was carried out and they were Scrapped.This doesn’t chime with RBSL’s claim that New Hulls could be made if required admittedly,but for whatever reason RBSL may have thought that New Jigs would be the best option going forward.

                    • If they have the plans then they could in theory be built, just a matter of cost. As the engine is under spec for the weight and is suffering in Ukraine due to it, I can’t see anyone wanting to pay said cost, Vs other options out there. The chally is good but not market leader.

                    • Hi Paul T,

                      The Chally 1 and 2 jigs might have been in poor condition if not stored properly. The CH1 jigs would have been built in the 1970’s I guess given that the Challenger 1 was the UK taking over the Iranian Shir 2 program so over 50 years old..! Challenger 2 were 1990’s obviously so still knocking on to 30 years old. Also, production techniques have moved on a lot even since the 90’s so perhaps they were not really appropriate anymore?

                      Just my musings.

                      Cheers CR

                • As has been discussed on here before,at some length,the Jordanian Army CR1 Fleet status is regularly speculated on.No-one on here can say 100% what it is,But there are clues,When Ukraine was urgently looking for Western MBT’s to fight with,our Govt paved the way with the CR2 Transfer.It was suggested at the time that Jordan’s now retired CR1 Fleet would be an ideal solution,and with 300+ available it would have added a lot of Capability too.This was looked into at High Levels but in the end nothing happened,and why it wasn’t possible. It was said that it could have been either (a) The Jordanian Govt was not prepared to release them ,or (b) they were in such a poor Material State that it was just impossibe to carry out.It is likely a combination of the two.In a recent FB post i saw,an interested Party went to Jordan with the aim of preserving some examples,they went to a Desert Storage area and managed to secure 6,these were the best they could find,The condition of the rest is said to be very bad.

            • Sure you can, you just need an adaptor kit, pop the new turret on, bobs your uncle.

              Why didn’t we just put our new turret on the latest Leppard hull, have lovlnew tanks and actually have a chance of selling a few???

              I guess the tail wagging the dog equation just didn’t add up…

        • Simon,
          Correct, believe Oman has approximately (38?) CR2 in inventory. Omani government, by all accounts, appears to be reasonably competent. Possibly have observed the performance of CR2 in Ukraine and have decided that the upgrade would be a cost effective life extension for their fleet.

          Another, probably more controversial option, is the possibility that there are more than 148 CR2 available from UK inventory for upgrade to CR3 standard. MoD/Contractors selected the hulls to be upgraded during a fixed-price contract. Would presume contractor has the capability to upgrade additional hulls, probably at a higher cost. Certainly could envision HMG pursuing this option, then gifting CR3s to Ukraine, or possibly other client states. Uncertain re reception by the British public of this plan; may require a significant PR campaign to accept the concept. 🤔

          • >there are more than 148 CR2 available from UK
            Correct, the UK MOD’s annual equipment statistics list of 1 April 2025 surprised everyone by claiming a holding of 288 Challenger 2 main battle tanks, a considerable uplift from previous years. However, general opinion seems to be that only c. 150–160 are combat capable, i.e. basically the ones selected for CR3 modernisation. Presumably many of the others are essentially hulks that have been stripped of anything useful for spares, and pre-2022 would have been scrapped by now as being beyond economic repair. But times have changed and the renewed demand for modern MBTs means that maybe these hulks can rebuilt to an “as new” CR3 standard for considerably less than a new build Leopard 2A8 (£20m vs £30m?), and with quicker delivery times.

            • Why is the UK fixed on 148 when any additional, up to 50 if possible could be a good value backup? Plus some for exports or is it exports first any leftovers for the UK?
              Like to see if they can install a Konesburg RS6 on the CR3s for a bit of C-uas. The latest Abram’s model seems to haven’t this.

              • Quentin, Under ‘Future Soldier’ the army was going to come down to just two armoured regiments. Assuming Type 58 units, that would be 116 tanks in the Field Army. Clearly someone worked out that the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve only needed 32 tanks divvied up between them. No doubt the Treasury had a hand in all this perhaps by limiting the budget available to just £800m – they ‘have form’.

                Interestingly, Ben Wallace, who as DS once derided tanks as ‘sunset capabilities’ that should be retired, very recently said that the number 148 was chosen as ‘he was told that’ only 148 tanks were in good enough condition to upgrade – that was clearly BS as we had 227 tanks on the active list at the time and they should all have been upgradeable – it may also have been the case that at least some of the c.70 tanks on the inactive list could have been upgreadeable too – it all depends on the detail of the Platform Presentation Standard set by RBSL.

                I heard that only 50 Trophy APS sets were to be procured several years ago. I wonder if this figure is still current? It makes no sense at all.

                • GM,
                  Thanks for your assessment of the programme. As an American following this website, frequently disturbed by the apparent degree of control HMG Treasury evidently exerts over the fate of HMG forces. Assumption of the risk of combat is inherent in the career choice, but being inadequately supplied w/ the weapons to conduct warfare, verges upon moral, if not criminal, malfeasance. Is there a capability to conscript MPs and Treaury civil servants for active duty, in the event of hostilities? Dunno, would personally find considerable solace in having the responsible individuals partake equally in ensuing operations. Fortunately, American forces have been adequately armed/supplied during the post-war era, at least to date. 🤔🤞

                  • The American defence budget is in the same order of magnitude as Britain’s GDP, let alone government expenditures (the US defence budget of $1tn is about half of all UK Government expenditure at about $1.7tn), let alone the military budget.

                    We simply have to make do with less as a smaller country. Certainly there is little suggestion that the two tank groups we planned to have (116 vehicles, per above) would be under equipped, and having a small army does not inherently mean that the army you have is under equipped either. We would be limited to a lesser role than the US is capable of. But that has always been true. Such as when British tank units acted as flankguard for the American push in GW1, or back in WW2.

                    When costs are stretched, sacrifices are to be made. In darker years, this did directly put troops at harm – the early 2000s and going into the Forever Wars with insufficient personal protection. But those days are largely behind us.

                • It sort of does though Graham, MBT’s ( short of a conversion to Damascus) are no longer regarded as one of the key pillars of the Armys, its been downgraded to a niche capability, so they will only ever deploy one Regiment.

                  As we have moved decidedly towards Brigade sized deployments, then this fits right into that thought process.

                  This useless lame duck government still hasn’t got the memo that Colt War 2 is here!

      • Bloke…, Jordan has the very different CR1, which they no longer use. They now have 80 ex-UAE Leclercs (acquired in late 2020) and have chosen to retain 182 M60A3 and 141 Centauro Tank Destroyers. They are no doubt wondering how to get rid of the CR1s.

    • It would have to be new build hulls in the case of export. Building those would be relatively easy. The turret is the difficult part.

        • New build will be more expensive, and more expensive is what the goverment calls not viable. Of course, that’s for us. If someone else wants to pay, it’s completely viable.

          • But is it more expensive?

            Or was it more to constrain The Good Ideas Club?

            If you start new build hulls from scratch then it starts to get altered all over the place and to become FRES or AJAX on reheat.

            I think the penny may have dropped that we need more tanks so more hulls of the same design is the way forwards.

            • Well possibly regarding the cost, but it would be a real surprise to me. We are paying less than £9m per unit to upgrade, aren’t we? Could we really get a modern tank for the cost of an Ajax? I have no idea what goes into a Leopard that makes it so expensive and I wonder if they are being priced on equal terms. Is it the maintenance, spares and training package that pushes up the price so much?

              As for your general point, yes I’d agree that as soon as you start changing things the price rockets up and perhaps throttling that could keep it down. Wasn’t the upgrade cost of a C3 going to be about £5m until someone said, shouldn’t we just….?

              • Jon, we are paying £5.4m per CR3 (£800m spent over 148 tanks) when programme costs are ammortised – I don’t understand your last sentence.
                Ajax is ridiculously expensive at £9.3m each but that is way less than the cost of a new-build MBT. New Leo2A8 is about £22m, for which price you could instead buy a good used F-16 fighter.
                You might get an Intitial Spares Pack included in the deal, or you might not. Maintenance would be done by army personnel, not by the factory. You would need support from the factory but that is strategic support and not routine maintenance.

                • The original contract was £800m, which as you say is £5.4m per unit, with whole life programme costs at £1.3bn in 2021. However, by 2024, whole life programme costs were reported as £1.99bn in the major projects database. This includes improved capabilities like a new modular armour system and an active protection system not included in the original upgrade spec. So what would that make the build costs? It’s not reported but pro rata it’s somewhere between £8 or £9m.

                  • Hi Jon,

                    Interesting post. I wonder if that suggests that we may have added in extra active protection systems, for example? From an operational point of venue it would make sense.

                    Cheers CR
                    PS. Probably just a burst of optimism on my part, I’ll get over in due course.

        • Its just to save afew bob. Theres no reason why they couldnt knock out the hulls if someone came in and asked for 500. Im not saying the will sell a single one, but it doable. If they can build Boxer hull in the UK they can build new Chally aswell.

            • Too true the MRA4 debacle was largely caused by switching from a new build plane to an its-a-bits-a confection as MoD tried to save peanuts.

            • The Nimrod fuselages were from ex Saudi Comets, due to extensive corrosion the refurbishment cost more than building new ones. BAE said they would be no good as hand built of varying measurements, the Government insisted they were used and the wings and interiors did not fit. Perhaps the person making the decision had shares in Cobham FR Aviation who did the subcontract work for BAE. People who worked in the aircraft aircraft industry knew it was going to fail long before the Government cancelled it. The equipment could have been put in an air cargo aircraft, expect there were plenty low miles ones for sale at the time.

      • Luke, you puzzle me. The CR3 turret is the easy part – its a new design and all parts are obtainable. Rheinmetall can easily and quickly volume produce these. The hull is the issue.

        The CR2 hull (base for the CR3 hull) was designed in 1986-1993, and built 1993-2002. Many people have said that all jigs were retained which I find astonishing. It remains to be seen if a British company such as BAE or RBSL could today build a tank hull from scratch. However as you say we can build Boxer hulls (which is of course a lighter and wheeled vehicle). These are built by RBSL, Telford, along with collaboration from KNDS UK, Stockport.

        Assuming BAE or RBSL could build CR2 hulls from scratch, so many fitted parts will no longer be made, so alternatives would have to be sourced, some of which would have to be made from scratch which would take time. One of the hardest things would be the wiring loom. The hull may have to be modified to accept replacement items if they differ in fit, form and function to the original equipment. I doubt they could just be ‘knocked out’.

        • Its an armoured box Graham. Not trying to be facitious but the hull isnt the hard part. The clever bit is in the turret. BAE or another heavy engineering company could build them if indeed sombody came in and wanted them. Thats what heavy engineering companies do.
          I dont think they will sell by the way.

      • Morning Graham, thanks for your reply. I’m a civilian so no real knowledge of these things just a background in supply chain and logistics. If only two regiments for the 116 (+32 reserves ) this sounds severely limiting. Pardon my ignorance on this but what if the UK needed substantial tank deployments in 3-4 places plus backups for attrition, losses and breakdowns? Wouldn’t even having even 3 tank regiments be more sensible for 174 + 32 reserves, so around 200? If the UK had to deply north, mid, south eastern Europe say and keep some ar home base?

    • It really isn’t! The turret is completely new and the hulls have had a substantial upgrade. The majority of Leo and M1 are basically the same tank with upgrades and new armour bolted on, although there are some new Leo hulls coming off the line now.M1 are taken from the desert and modified to the latest standard,so the Germans and Americans are no different to us in that regard.

    • Probably did what they did to shift some Tornado ADVs. Apparently no-one else saw the value in turning bombers into interceptors, so we leaned heavily on Saudi Arabia, who got rid of them first chance they got.

  4. Please sir can we, the UK, have more?
    If we can’t build or upgrade any more for our own army, why are we proposing selling them overseas from limited remaining Ch2 hulls we’ll desperately need for parts at the very least in any future conflict?

  5. Starmer mentioned the number of different fighting systems across Europe in his address to the Munich conference, suggesting that commonisation be the preferred route going forward. The current CH3 opportunities could point to a change in direction for the MOD and a possible sell-off of CH3 in preference to say, Leapard A8? A CH3 sell-off would help to pay for the transition to the German tank, which would allow the UK to build the majority of vehicles at home and tailor the fleet to the needs of the field commanders. Under current plans, it’s believed the UK could convert approximately 200 CH3 but that would be its limit due to the suitability of hull condition. A purchase of Leopard A8 would speed up greater integration with many European nations that operate various Leopard designs but would bring British and German battle groups closer to commonisation. If Boxer is brought into the equation, plus the howitzer variant, then a potential for a formidable land force is clear. Inevitably, we must aim to commonise the European component of NATO, and it’s a question of cost and above all commitment.

    • So to get greater commonality we downgrade to a Leopard. And probably take a loss on selling the CH3 for less than the cost of the upgrade…

      2 + 2 = 37 is wrong answer

      • Spock, I doubt the UK would be losing money but gaining an opportunity to achieve parity with a key ally. After all, CH3 has a Leopard gun and can use the same ammo. I doubt the A8’s turret is inferior to ours, and as for lethality, we simply don’t know. All we know is it has all the bells and whistles as CH3 in terms of countermeasures. The main advantage of selecting A8 is the scope to build more than the planned CH3, which addresses the reserve issue, which has always been the drawback to CH2 conversions. Right answer?

          • I don’t believe we know the exact costs of any military vehicle that is built under licence, as many offsets have to be dialled in, especially through the complexities of international business agreements. A commonised European tank fleet is the ultimate goal, and that may result in additional expense, but that doesn’t mean we won’t take the pain.

        • You forgot about the armour, the Leopard’s composite armour isn’t as good as Chally’s Chobham/Dorchester.
          You’ll find survival is pretty high on tankers list of priorities – something you completely omitted from your comparison.

          • Come on, Spock, the A8 is not made of cardboard. Stopping projectiles with countermeasures hitting the tank is the new Chobham / Dorchester, and the A8 is probably the best available?

            • The armour on the Leapord A8 is recognised as not being as good as that of the Challenger’s Chobham/Dorchester. FACT.

              As for claiming A8 has the better countermeasures… the Challenger 3 use the same Trophy system. FACT

              So the Challenger 3 is obviously still the better tank for crew survivability. 🤷🏻‍♂️

              QED

    • Reeves has also spoken about european economies of scale, standardisation, value for money etc. The UK is not the only nation struggling to find the money for big increases in defence spending. We won’t drop the CH3 upgrade for Leopard. I think Reeves and Starmer are positioning the RBSL UK sites to be included in any manufacturing of a new European MBT.

      • Paul.P, the only exportable element of the CH3 is the turret, and RBSL can make those all day long. However, the complete tank is extremely limited as we aren’t sure there is a conversion capability of all 148 CH2? Reading between the lines, there appears to be some caution in the MOD wording as if to suggest more time is required before flow production? Remember the Warrior upgrade, where allegedly, they found too many dimensional differences between vehicles when it came to fitting the new turret. The Army needs all 148 CH3 and even more to satisfy war reserve, so selling additional CH3’s appears to be at a very low volume considering the number of CH2s available. Selling all CH3 is a real option if commonisation can be achieved by buying Leapard A8 in quantity.

        • And would it be too much of a headache to even have a mixed fleet of Leopards and CR3 MBTs? They could operate in their self contained regiments independently of others. Hasn’t Norway got both German Leopards and Korean tanks?

          • Quentin, I faced a phalanx of comments about mixing our MBT fleet and most made sense; however, we are not in a good place in Europe right now, and the weekend conference was clear evidence that Europe had dropped the defence ball. Forget all the nonsense about 148 CH3 fitting the UK’s needs; it’s not true, it’s basically B.S. Possibly the only way to supply MBTs in volume if a protracted conflict in Europe draws in the UK is a mixed MBT fleet. If the UK were to supplement CH3 with 100 Leopard A8 it would allow for training and competence and leave the door open for more vehicles, hence an orderly transition. The mood has suddenly gone up a gear in Starmer’s thinking as he and the rest of us can actually envisage the possibility of confrontation in the near future.

            • If you look at Poland,then yes they have a mixed MBT Fleet positively brimming with Diversity,but our situation is different,we have much bigger Fish to Fry (and try and fund) and if the Brown stuff did hit the Fan in Europe,the demand for Leopard Tanks would far out strip supply,we would be waiting a very long time for any to be delivered.

              • While true we may be waiting with existing lines, it’s worth keeping in mind RBSL is a part owned by Rheinmetall, Theoretically the offer on the table could actually be to finish (Or entirely ditch) the CR3 conversions ASAP and then move Telford over to producing L2A8’s for us and for wider deliveries within Europe, to bring everyone’s deliveries up the schedule.

  6. It may be that Oman is thinking about moving its challenger 2 fleet to challenge 3, also it may be possible to do a challenger 1 to challenger 3 upgrade package in which case you have the Jordanian force.. they have not yet placed a major order to replace its challenger 1 fleet, they got some ( 80) freebie original leclercs.. but the withdrawal of their 400 challenger 1s has left them massively depleted.. and they are a big land power with insecurity all around.

    • Jonathan

      IIRC, C1 and C2 are pretty different beasts.

      Where export potential might lay is in the turret, which with some bespokery, might be quite a saleable item.

      • True but the very big difference between challenger 1 and 2 was the turret and second generation composite armour.. hull design wise there are changes but it’s not huge.. I’m sure if it’s possible to pop a challenger 3 turret on a challenger 1 and make an upgrade they will give it a good shot at selling the idea to Jordan.

        • What would you get if you mixed a Leopard with a Challenger, Panthera spelaea – or just Panther?

          It should (could) form the first eNATO common MBT.

          • If we buy it as a British tank we’ll want a name that starts with C. The Germans will want a cat.

            In English we’d be sorted with Cougar, Cheetah and Clouded Leopard, but in German those are Puma (taken), Gepard (taken) and Nebelparder.

            So by process of elimination Clouded Leopard it is.

            • Clouded Leopard? Does that come with translucent(?) / chameleon camouflage – a la James Bond, melts into the background?

              Sounds cool, naturally camouflaged.

              So if
              Cromwell was Crom
              Centurion – Cent
              Chieftain – Chief(y)
              Challenger – Chally
              Clouded… ???

              Not sure Dern, this will need some work, mate 😉

                • Indirectly yes.
                  Back in the 30’s we divided our Tanks into Infantry tanks and Cruiser tanks, with Infantry Tanks generally going to the RTR and Army Tank Brigades and the Cruiser, Light Tanks, and Armoured Cars going to the Cavalry (RTR is considered vaguely Cavalry adjacent now, though I’d hesitate to call them Cavalry to their face or around actual Cavalry, but they originated as part of the Infantry, specifically the Machine Gun Corps). For a while all British Cruiser tanks where simply called “Cruiser Mk whatever” but then started gaining additional names, which all started with “C” to denote Cruiser Tank.

                  After the War when Cruiser and Infantry tanks sort of went away in favour of the MBT the “C” naming convention stuck.
                  So the lineage is basically.
                  Cruiser MkI through Cruiser Mk IV
                  Cruiser MkV Covenanter
                  Cruiser MkVI Crusader
                  Cruiser MkVII Cavalier
                  Cruiser MkVIII Cromwell/Centaur
                  Challenger
                  Comet
                  Centurion
                  Charioteer
                  Conqueror
                  Chieftain
                  Challenger 1 through Challenger 3

          • Talking of that isn’t there the “Panther” tank option too? Thought i read somewhere that Italy has ordered 300 plus lots of Lynx IFV and variants?

        • Had a bit of a read and apparently the CR1 turret ring would require a substantial rework for a CR3 turret to ‘drop in’ and is a major engineering task! Confusing really as Rhienmettal have said the new turret is capable of being put on different hulls!

    • Hi Jonathan,
      I just love how most folks missed the word “capabilities” and either leapt to us selling our CR3 and replacing them Leopards or new builds. As you say the logical conclusion is Oman in fact it’s blindingly obvious that we would offer this to Oman and they would be receptive to the idea.
      They have 38 CR3 in service and once we introduce CR3 they are stuck for spares and ammunition, so they either replace them with another tank or just signup for CR3.
      As for Jordan that would be a real cherry on the cake, but it would require new build hulls and so far that’s not even been mooted. Personally I don’t see new builds as being an insolvable problem providing MOD engages with British Industry in an innovative way and the original jigs still exist !
      My start point would be BAe to see if the jigs still exist, find out if the CR2 was done using early CAD and can they use the Govan plate line to produce the steelwork.
      Then talk to JCB, simple reason is they are the only people in U.K who have actually built a Tank in U.K since CR2 and their plant is very adaptable.

      • ‘I just love how most folks missed the word “capabilities”.’

        That’s actually a good spot. But the last time this was reported it referred to tanks and not just capabilities, so here is the full Parliamentary Q&A:

        Written Question 107227

        Ben Obese-Jecty MP asked the Secretary of State for Defence:

        ‘To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the potential impact of the MARTE Project on future defence export opportunities for Challenger 3.’

        Answer, 28 January 2026

        Luke Pollard MP:

        ‘Challenger 3 is the centrepiece of the British Army’s armoured modernisation programme and will deliver a step change in lethality, survivability and digital integration.

        The Department continues to explore export opportunities for Challenger 3 and its capabilities under the Land Industrial Strategy.’

        Written Question 110532

        Ben Obese-Jecty MP asked the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the answer of 28 January 2026 to Question 107227 on Challenger Tanks: Exports, what progress he has made in exploring export opportunities for Challenger 3 and its capabilities.

        Answer, 11 February 2026

        Luke Pollard MP:

        ‘The Department continues to explore opportunities for the export of Challenger 3 capabilities with significant progress made to date.

        Providing further detail at this time would compromise commercial sensitivities.’

        So the wording has shifted. The first answer refers to ‘Challenger 3 and its capabilities’. The second answer refers specifically to ‘the export of Challenger 3 capabilities’.

        That may be nothing, but these answers are on the parliamentary record, so the wording is (normally) chosen carefully.

  7. Now that IFVs are coming in at 30 tonnes plus beasts is there any potential that the C3 turret could be added to a large tracked IFV ( ie tracked Boxer) if the customer wanted it?.

    A C2 turret is 20 tonnes, more modern armour may make the C3 less.
    Beef up the suspension and power of an OTS IFV hull and you have a “light tank)

    Price wise it would have to come in less than the 25-35m euro price of the latest LeoA8.

    A front engines IFV with a top class optics, APS and assault gun package with dismounts. Merkava like.

  8. ? – Can we make new Challengers, as opposed to just upgrading? Is an assembly line still available? Or is it just a few of the system upgrades we’re talking about?

  9. hard to believe
    1. which contry or countries are potential buyers? how many and timeline?
    2. when was the last Challenger 2 built? upgrading existing tanks is one thing, but producing a tank from scratch is a whole different matter, because that requires re-establishing production capability ie retooling, supply chain etc… this does not happen by simply snapping your fingers, it takes time and money.
    3. while re-investing in the industrial base is a very good idea, should MBT for export be be the priority? seems like there are more pressing matters.
    my 2 cents

    • This was discussed previously,and at length on another thread,it is likely that any Export Opportunity relates to the New Turret,which is being Manufactured currently,not a Complete Tank as such,

  11. Maybe Bovington Tank Museum Is the potential Exporter then ?
    Winter Sale, 50% off, All stock must go.

    (Just £23 per adult If anyone fancies a walk around)

  13. In order to export them, we’d have to give them ours, and we weren’t going to have enough in the first place…🫩

    Are we pivoting towards a min-max strategy? Loads of drones and zero tanks? When military planners conduct wargames I didn’t realise they meant 40K…

  14. looks a bit dimwitted to release a statements like this and maybe they did not intend to suggest uk with few tanks was in a position to export.

  15. My interpretation of ‘CH3 capabilities’ is that it doesn’t mean the tanks themselves, rather it means some sort industrial or intellectual skills related thereto. Maybe the know how and/or hardware to convert other people’s CH2 to CH3.

    • There are only 2 other countries fielding CH2. Ukraine – who are in no position to pull them from service for that type of upgrade (& only have a handful anyway) & Oman, who have something like 38. Common sense suggests it would be Oman. They have the money to afford the upgrade & enough tanks to make it a worthwhile exercise to consider.

  16. Use ‘Ukraine’ defence budget allocation to buy back Challies from Oman and Jordan, upgrade in UK, supply to Ukraine with Ch3 turrets…

    Market opportunity for German Chally 3 turrets with Brit produced hulls to Jordan and Oman and create scale to sell to other countries.

    Never going to happen, bit like , 31 by 30 by Babcock.

  17. Can some one in the know clear one thing up. Do need the hull of C2 to make a C3? or can the hull of C1 do? , am i missing some thing as in new hulls could be made then if so why the drama about how many good hulls there are left? or was that a distraction and a half truth?

    • No the turret ring on a CR1 won’t accept the new turret without major rework,new hulls apparently can be built but of course then the cost ofCR3 will go up to cover the cost of manufacturing,probably still a cheaper option than a new Leopard (€27-34m a pop).

    • In terms of Fantasy Tank Fleets,there are a few possibilities – (a) CR1.5 ,A CR1 Hull mated to a Discarded/Refurbished CR2 Turret,not likely and maybe physucally impossible,and (b) CR2.5, CR1 Hull mated to the New CR3 Turret,again even more unlikely and ditto impossible.I did tweet QRH on X,just out of curiousity and asked if the CR1 and CR2 Turret Ring Diameters were the same,strangely i did get a reply but i didn’t get a definitive answer.

      • I have been told they not the same diameter which seems strange but i have no idea, would be easier if they were but being british its likely they are not.

  18. OK thank you. Might be a money maker to build new ones if enough orders were placed. Would be a very good tank to have better than any thing else out there, or on offer and likely cheaper.

  19. The UK needs to bite the bullet and, for once, take advantage of the need for a new modern CH4 tank design, based on the reputation of historic UK Challenger types. Use it as part of the process of re-industrializing the UK and Defence Investment Strategy. Make it a true Sovereign UK design, have core production in the UK, make it drone proof, and go back to a specialized long-range “sniper” capability, with associated ammunition stocks produced in the UK at scale. Benefits would be: a great solution for the British Army, export potential, and wider benefits to the UK through IP/profits, employment and generally retaining money within the UK economy rather than exporting jobs and writing cheques to others.

    War is not going away any time soon. For once rather than let America, Germany, France, Sweden, and Italy profit from it, the UK could gain some benefit.

  20. i wish just i do not see any one wanting put the money up front. Sad we dreamed up the Tank but every one else builds most of stuff for one and we have buy in.

  23. Just wondering if an export version will have the full Epson and Farnham armour packages or will it have a ‘dumbed down’ armour package.

    I understood the C2 sent to Ukraine had the full Dorchester armour that UK tanks had and were not ‘dumbed down’.

    Dorchester is almost 30yrs old now so I doubt we would want any potential adversaries getting their hands on Epsom/Farnham should a C3 be captured.

  24. Standing back from all this well informed detail – I know little about Tanks except they are big, heavy and expensive – – I wouldn’t be suprised if our current Govenrment proposes to sell off a significant number of the current CH3 order to gain qudos under the banner of ‘selling for Britian’ and ‘growth’. When it comes to the Gap in capability caused by the sell-off (not that 148 is very much capability) they will go off in some hair brained scheme to rebuild older CH’s – of course it won’t happen quickly and will cost more in the end due to newly discovered issues. To cover the Capability gap they will promise some wishy washy scheme of ‘pain now but more tanks tomorrow’ -smoke and mirrors. Just like their promises to spend more on Defence sometime in the future when they are hopeing the threat will have lessened.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here