The British Army’s Challenger 3 (CR3) Programme has achieved a significant landmark with the 120mm smoothbore gun test firings successfully completed.

This successful testing of the 120mm L55A1 weapon system took place in April.

“The new 120mm L55A1CR3 weapon system will provide the British Army with the capability to meet all current and future battlefield challenges,” stated Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL).

Two of these 120mm smoothbore L55A1 weapons had already entered production in 2021, earlier than planned, at Rheinmetall’s Unterluess facility. The smoothbore guns were examined and confirmed before being sent to RBSL in Telford. Here, they were integrated with the new ‘digital’ turret.

In another significant development in August 2023, the first steel structure, or CR3 citadel, for the Prototype 1 (P1) arrived in Telford.

This CR3 citadel, vital for the tank’s turret, will be upgraded for usage in the Challenger 3, enhancing the British Army’s capabilities for years to come. Emphasising its importance, RBSL mentioned that this citadel delivery, made in partnership with Pearson Engineering, marked a substantial progress point in the Challenger 3 programme.

Gareth Ayre from RBSL expressed, “Completing the first turret structure of CR3 is a significant milestone in the delivery of this next generation main battle tank… This is a fantastic achievement from both a manufacture and partnership perspective from everyone involved and a major boost for UK prosperity.”

2023 is turning out to be a good year for the Challenger 3 Programme. Apart from the aforementioned advancements, the Critical Design Review (CDR) for CR3 was approved ahead of schedule.

The British Army’s longstanding association with RBSL, the UK-based joint venture between Rheinmetall and BAE Systems, has yielded several combat vehicles in the past. Alongside the CR3 Programme, RBSL is a significant producer of the Boxer Armoured Vehicle under the UK MOD’s Mechanised Infantry Vehicle programme.

RBSL had announced in May 2021 about securing an £800m contract to upgrade 148 Challenger 3 (CR3) Main Battle Tanks for the British Army. This enhanced vehicle promises to be a digital, network-enabled Main Battle Tank with advanced lethality, surveillance, and target acquisition features.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

90 COMMENTS

  2. Farewell, then to the L30A1 rifled gun, described recently by a Ukraine tanker as making the Challenger II “a sniper among tanks”

    It’s good news that this upgrade is proceeding successfully at pace. Its a shame that only 148 will be upgraded though. The British Army will appreciate Wallace’ efforts to maintain an armoured capability.

    Let’s hope the K9 replacement for the AS90 SPG will also proceed as fast

      • Ahem

        https://www.army.mod.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/09/army-chief-sets-out-plan-for-next-generation-of-war-fighters/?utm_source=BritishArmy_Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_Subject=DSEICGSSpeech&utm_campaign=Purpose

        Sounds like Project Wavell is getting a slow release.

      • Oh FFS!

        Lets try this without the links shall we?

        • 1st (UK) Division taking 16 Air Assault Brigade Combat Team under its command and becoming a land component command of a joint and multi-domain sovereign Global Response Force (GRF) by 2024, as “an agile tool of foreign policy able to deliver rapid global effects and be first to the fight. This is a return to fielding a second battle-winning division HQ.”
        • 3rd (UK) Division being enhanced to warfight under the Allied Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) – the UK’s NATO Corps – while the Army’s Special Operations Forces will be offered to NATO for the first time.

        Announcement today by CGS, sounds like Project Wavell is finally getting the slow release.

        • Hi mate. Just in and seen this.
          Reading that, nothing as yet that we did not know.
          “3 Div enhanced” Do we know if 7 is going there?

          • Confirmation of rumors rather than new information. I’d read 7 as not going to 3, because if that happens there will not be much of 1 UK XX to be a deployable division.

          • “By re-structuring 6th Div elements within Field Army we can elevate Land Special Operations Forces and “info ops” outputs to component level”

            Translation?

          • Well it’s raising them up at least a level going by those words. I’m not willing to comment on where until the actual announcement is made, hope you understand.

          • Hmm, eyebrows raised.

            https://www.army.mod.uk/who-we-are/formations-divisions-brigades/6th-united-kingdom-division/

            “LAND SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE

            Over the coming months we will transition into the Land Special Operations Force. By restructuring 6th (United Kingdom) Division elements within the Field Army, we can elevate Land Special Operations and Specialist Capabilities, including Information Operations outputs to the component level. This enables smarter task-organisation – the power of combinations, and exploits the Field Army’s broad connectivity and access to multi-domain capabilities.

            This meets twin aims: the Chief of Defence Staff direction that single services conduct special operations and the British Army’s commitment to NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction Force, Special Operations Task Force (SOTF26).

            This transition brings exciting and real opportunities, and reflects the critical contribution to Defence of information warfare and special operations partnering. Both have been proven on operations during the past two years and are vital capabilities within the new structure. This elevation and centralisation of specialist capabilities means the British Army can better and more quickly understand emerging requirements faced by Defence and adapt and respond to them faster.”

            Interesting.

            The mention of the “Land Special Operations Force” and a video that mentions capabilities that AFAIK form no part of 6 Div’s 2 Bdes, 77 and ASOB.
            The narrator to the vid says…” The Division carries out Cyber and EW activities” Does it? News to me? CEMAG has the EW and Cyber assets and that is within FAT, which is not in 6 Division.

            The Google Search “British Army 6 Division” which led me to the above link, is even more perplexing. As the top result, a British Army page, states ….

            “Headquarters 6 (UK) Division is the largest formation in the British Army. It commands units that provide Combat Support, Command Support, certain Combat”

            The rest is not shown and when one clicks on it the page it links to the site I link above.

            I assume, unless there are some BIG changes coming, that that passage is outdated and reflects when 6 Div was in effect Force Troops Command when it indeed had several other Bde and Group sized formations including the ISRG and CEMAG, unless FAT itself is being binned and its components moved into 6 Div.

          • First effort into moderation so link removed.

            This passage was on the British Army’s 6 Div page.

            ““LAND SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCE
            Over the coming months we will transition into the Land Special Operations Force. By restructuring 6th (United Kingdom) Division elements within the Field Army, we can elevate Land Special Operations and Specialist Capabilities, including Information Operations outputs to the component level. This enables smarter task-organisation – the power of combinations, and exploits the Field Army’s broad connectivity and access to multi-domain capabilities.
            This meets twin aims: the Chief of Defence Staff direction that single services conduct special operations and the British Army’s commitment to NATO’s Allied Rapid Reaction Force, Special Operations Task Force (SOTF26).
            This transition brings exciting and real opportunities, and reflects the critical contribution to Defence of information warfare and special operations partnering. Both have been proven on operations during the past two years and are vital capabilities within the new structure. This elevation and centralisation of specialist capabilities means the British Army can better and more quickly understand emerging requirements faced by Defence and adapt and respond to them faster.”

            Interesting.

            The mention of the “Land Special Operations Force” and a video that mentions capabilities that AFAIK form no part of 6 Div’s 2 Bdes, 77 and ASOB.
            The narrator to the vid says…” The Division carries out Cyber and EW activities” Does it? News to me? CEMAG has the EW and Cyber assets and that is within FAT, which is not in 6 Division.
            The Google Search “British Army 6 Division” which led me to the above link, is even more perplexing. As the top result, a British Army page, states ….

            “Headquarters 6 (UK) Division is the largest formation in the British Army. It commands units that provide Combat Support, Command Support, certain Combat”

            The rest is not shown and when one clicks on it the page it links to the site I link above. Largest formation in the Army?

            I assume, unless there are some BIG changes coming, that that passage is outdated and reflects when 6 Div formed and was in effect Force Troops Command when it indeed had several other Bde and Group sized formations including the ISRG and CEMAG, unless FAT itself is being binned and its components moved into 6 Div.

          • And if I’m reading the impending tea leaves correctly I’m encouraged at where this is going as LSOF, 6, sits next to the GRF, 1.

          • So, with great regret I’m going to burst a bubble here:
            The Video is from early 2022, possibly even 2021. It’s got nothing to do with the future orbat (or lack of) for 6 UK Div, but reflects the current role and structure of the division as it sees itself (and maybe over hypes 77X).

            You are right about the google text though, using highly advanced cyber warfare capabilities I have retrieved the source and found that the oldest surviving version of the webpage hosts those exact words (I loaded up the way back when Machine and looked at what the 6UK Div website looked like in 2019)

            The fact that LSOF has made it into Open Source is more interesting. It’s a term that’s been used within ASOB for a while now, but sadly besides the name, very little is revealed most of the update is just rehashing CGS speech. Oh except for the mention of SOFT26, which, I believe, is a multinational HQ.

          • It certainly does overhype 77, though I see that formations components have been renamed for the 3rd or 4th time and 6 MIB has had a revamp.

            6 MIB. I see that seems to have gone Hybrid as planned. Any idea what the 2 Reg Coys are? Assume they’ve come from 2 MIB?

            Yes, LSOF goes well with GRF to my mind.

          • Nope, no idea what the coys in 6MI are I’m afraid.

            In other news Nicholas Drummond posted an image of the Rangers stand at DSEI, and f**k me, is there a more myopic band of grouchy tw*ts than on British Military Twitter.

            Amoung the complaints where that that Royal Irish Rangers might get upset (even though they’ve not existed since 1992), and that “The British never used the term Rangers they stole it from us [the Americans].” despite the fact that the British Army has had a unit with the word “Rangers” in it’s title continously since 1776.

          • Yep found the thread. It is explained clearly on there ( including maybe by your good self? ) the history of the term “ranger” and its links to British colonial war and units.

        • Further down, “new UAS Group” in the JAC, renamed from JHC.
          We know a 2nd EW Reg has formed to compliment 14, ( 21 RS ) this is mentioned and they’re putting people into the NCF. This area still very hazy, by design.
          We cannot really pass judgement til the unit ORBAT changes, if any, are outlined.

          • Interesting choice of words “Group” not “Battalion” or “Regiment.” Maybe a 1* or sub 1* unit that has command over all the Army and RAF UAS.

          • There is such a group already though, the ISR Group, which took bits of the 1 ISR Bde when that was split up into the 2 DIEGs, the CEMAG, and the ISR Gp.

            Hope this isn’t just another rebrand of existing packaged as “new”
            You’d assume as a group would have 5 AAC, 32 and 47 RA in it. All in JAC.

          • Without a new headcount increase there will be no truley “new” units, it’ll all be about re-adjusting what current units do and realigning them to get a better force balance, we both know this.

          • Also, 137 ( Java ) Battery has reformed today at Baker Bks. Part if 12 RA on Stormer. Report on Forces Net.

      • It’s not confirmed yet. But a UK team has visited Korea and had a look at the production facilities. Apparently they have made a generous offer to build them here – but I guess it will depend on the size of the order.

        I would like to see a lot more of the excellent BAE Archer system, but the 8×8 version not the 6×6 that we have ordered

        • A pity we have lost the ability (seemingly) to build SPGs, but we do need to buy more army kit ‘off the shelf’, as the need to recapitalise the heavy army quickly is very urgent.

    • Still not convinced it was necessary to change the gun. The smoothbore may have somewhat better armour penetration but for non kinetic rounds, the L30 is more effective at longer range.

    • So Ben Wallace’s promise to revisit tank numbers based on the war in Ukraine came to nought then…. I’m sure he did due diligence but the results were no doubt swept under the carpet.

      • Maybe they are waiting for the results that the squadron Challys achieve in Ukr. Sadly one of them was lost recently but the crew escaped and the turret did not blow off.

      • They seem to be addressing some of the key takes from Ukraine so far.
        That the RA is in shit state and needs uplifting.
        That AD is vital and is indeed getting an uplift, with six AD programs in total.
        That Drones are the big thing now and need both countering and building, in numbers.
        Tanks are still needed, but not in great numbers as the people and supports for them do not currently exist. I’d be happy with just maintaining the KRH ( the 3rd current Armoured Regiment ) who were meant to convert to Ajax years ago. So even a small uplift to CH3 numbers would help achieve that.

    • So is that it regards the gun forever ?
      Will all future tanks use the smooth bore gun due to the paucity of manufacturers of modern ammunition for rifled guns?
      I understand the rifled gun is superior for accuracy over any substantial distance but it is really just the availabilty of ammo that has put an end to it or are their other technical considerations .
      Is it Betamax vs. VHS all over again ?

  3. Interesting that the US looked at the Russo-Ukraine war and decided to scrap its upgrade plans with the Abrams M-1 SepIV and will build a much lighter, hybrid tank. Undoubtedly the General Dynamics AbramsX prototype will be the basis.

      • The M10 Booker, yes, it’s a CVRT replacement but with a big gun. But SEPv4 is bring canned in favour of the M1E3, basically instead of doing an incremental upgrade that will put the m1 at 80+t, they are doing a full tear down and rebuild, looking to eliminate weight were possible. But it’ll still be an Abrams, we just don’t know what kind of Abrams. (Lots of guff reporting on this).

        • There’s two trains of thought that I know of, one using a redesigned purpose built turret as per Chally 3. Which would include the lighter XM360 main gun, along with a fully integrated combat management system, that incorporates all the previous thermal optics, CROWS and Trophy modifications. Using dedicated common wiring and sa standard network (data-link) architecture. But still keeps a three man turret crew. One major item that will be removed is the hydraulic turret actuation system. Being replaced by electric motors and again saves weight.

          The second is a new turret that includes an autoloader, which then does away with the loader. So the turret can be made smaller and lighter. Plus incorporating the new main gun and the systems integration as mentioned above.

          The first option could save around 5t, whilst the latter between 8 and 12t. Then there’s the Abrams X technology demonstrator. This uses an unmanned turret and places the commander, Gunner and Driver in the forward part of the hull as per the Russian T14. This could be the left field option. However, there has been very little enthusiasm or uptake of the idea within the US Army, from what I can gather. But this option could save anywhere around 20t or more, so getting closer to the 60t ideal.

          There has been some rumours of replacing the gas turbine with a US made Cummins 6 cylinder opposed piston diesel engine. Though I have also heard talk of a new gas turbine as well.

          The US Army are seriously concerned with the incremental weight growth of the Abrams. Where there is the belief that with the inclusion of Trophy along with additional theatre entry applique armour, the tank is reaching nearly 80t. Which is too much for many bridges, but especially the Army’s engineer’s bridges. The incremental modifications and upgrades have consistently added weight. Which is why they have decided to halt the upgrade program and start afresh.

          I have a feeling that they will follow the Challenger route, by designing a new “lighter” turret. It remains to be seen if they go down reduction in manpower with the autoloader route. Although an unglamorous job, the Loader is critical to the tank’s and crew’s performance. As they do most of the gash jobs, feed the crew, help with maintenance and provide an extra set of eyes when heads out of the tank.

          • Yeah I’ve heard all three of those threads, and I can see the logic behind each of them, I think we’ll just have to wait 5-7 years to here what the DoD and US Army decide they want exactly.

  4. Something lighter is needed also. There is a great opportunity here.
    A serious look needs to be taken at what armour is actually needed and how a big gun could be used on a lighter platform.

    • Boxer with a main gun / turret variant still looks appealing I think.

      CV90 is also a no brainer especially with the volumes announced in the Ukraine partnership.

      I know wheels vs tracks always comes in to question but Boxer with main gun to augment CH3 surely it is worth considering?

        • 😍 That vehicle just looks the part, and the price. I will never understand what is in Andovers heads…though I try re ORBATS.

      • Always been a fan of the Japanese type 16 and Italian Centauro. Both wheeled platforms so better road mobility for faster deployment.

        So I’d go for a Boxer with a 105 – 120mm main gun.

      • I’m not so sure it will be a good idea to use the Boxer as a mobile direct fires platform. I am basing this off the US Army’s experience with their Stryker mobile gun system (MGS). A lot of the issues that vehicle had were due to the gun’s recoil, which required a strengthened hull. But it also led to issues with the autoloader. Some of these issues could be due to using a high pressure gun with a hull/turret that was too light. Some could also be due to the narrowness of the Stryker, which I believe is nearly foot narrower than Boxer. A lot of the problems with the MGS led directly to the M10 Booker (mobile protected firepower) as a replacement.

        I could be wrong with Boxer, if lessons are learned from the Stryker. But a tracked IFV such as the CV90 120 or even using the Ajax hull, would I believe be the better option. As there’s more scope to add additional armour, i.e. weight compared to a wheeled vehicle. I would say that if Boxer were armed with a low pressure 105/120mm gun, this would still provide a significant direct fires upgrade to what the Army currently has. Plus if the turret included either externally mounted ATGW or a gun launched ATGW, then it could also engage MBTs if required.

      • Boxer must have a beefy stabilised cannon (in aturret of course) if it is truly to replace Warrior for the Armoured Infantry (AI).

  5. Good news but I am not surprised that this was a success. A trial on integrating the Rheinmetall smoothbore L55 cannon was successfuly done for the Challenger Lethality Improvement Programme (CLIP) in Jan 2006 – nearly 18 years ago – on the not-dissimilar Challenger 2.

    Wiki: “A single Challenger 2 was fitted with the Rheinmetall smoothbore L55 and underwent trials in January 2006.[76] The smoothbore gun was the same length as the L30A1 and was fitted with the rifled gun’s cradle, thermal sleeve, bore evacuator and muzzle reference system. Early trials apparently revealed that the German tungsten DM53 round was more effective than the depleted uranium CHARM 3.[51] The ammunition storage and handling arrangements had to be changed to cater for the single-piece smoothbore rounds, instead of the separate-loading rifled rounds. Other improvements were also considered, including a regenerative NBC protection system.[77]

    • The main issue is that the one piece rounds are 750mm long. The Challenger 2 doesn’t have a magazine bustle. So storage if the rounds was a bit of a disaster. From memory they could only store around 8 rounds

      • The Wiki piece said that ammo handling and storage arrangements were changed for the 2006 trial. Do you mean 8 rounds in total even with amended handling and storage arrangements?
        No wonder we did not adopt 120mm smoothbore then.

        • Yes, rounds in total. But bear in mind there was next to no modifications to the hull or turret to incorporate one piece round stowage. The stowage for the 8 rounds was a temporary fix just for the trial. There wasn’t any money available for a turret redesign just for the trial of one modified tank.

          However, it did prove the Chally could use a higher pressure gun without requiring structural modifications to handle the additional recoil forces. But, if the L55 gun was to be brought in to service, then the turrets would need a complete redesign along with possible hull modifications needed for one-piece ammunition stowage.

          Its amazing to think we could of had a version of Chally 3 back in 2006 following on from the trials. However, all the money earmarked for Chally upgrades, went to support operations in Iraq and Afghan.

          As a postscriptum. When Royal Ordinance were looking at replacing the L11 gun used on Chieftains and Challenger 1. They also produced a smoothbore version of the L30A1. That used one piece ammunition. However, the Army wanted HESH as the HE round, as they believed it was more flexible than having the need for both HE and HEAT rounds. Bearing in mind programmable multi-purpose HE/HEAT rounds weren’t available then. HESH doesn’t work that well fired from a smoothbore. So even though it performed ok for other types of ammunition, it didn’t go any further. Hence why the Army requested a rifled gun.

          • Thanks Davey. That all rings quite a few bells. Of course CR3 is so much more than fitting a smoothbore cannon, but I take your point.
            I despair at the minimal upgrades done for CR1 (in its day) and CR2 – compared to the Chieftain era; the same is true for many other British AFVs, sadly. Wouldn’t be allowed to happen in the other two services!

    • Where are the 300 coming from? Where is double the crews, support vehicles, IFVs, recovery vehicles, road and train transports, extra ammo and so on.
      I think there is a reason the army is only going for 148 and it’s because they can’t field any more with the organisation plans. Some of those will also be reserves.
      Forces are structured wrong and a bit small.

      • Sadly the Army could easily have 3 Challenger Regiments in it’s current orbat. Just have 2 Armoured Brigades and a Cavalry Group… but I’ve waxed lyrical about this many times.

    • Micki,

      Why do you say 300? The army accepted (perhaps grudgingly) a figure of 227 CR2s on the active list following the austerity cuts of 2010.

      I agree that 148 is a ridiculous number that allows the fielding of just 112 tanks in the Field Army.

  8. True then, true now 😉

    “We know exactly what we want. We want a fast, highly mobile, fully armored, lightweight vehicle. It must be able to swim, cross any terrain, and climb 30 degree hills. It must be air-transportable. It must have a simple but powerful engine, requiring little or no maintenance. The operating range should be several hundred miles. We would also like it to be invisible”.
    General Bruce C. Clarke.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here