The most advanced tank ever operated by the British Armed Forces, the new Challenger 3, made its first public appearance at the Defence Vehicle Dynamics (DVD) 2024 event, held at Millbrook.

Developed by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) at their Telford facility, Challenger 3 represents the future of battlefield armour, combining cutting-edge technology with unparalleled crew protection and operational capability.

The tank boasts a next-generation modular armour system, developed by leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) in partnership with DE&S and RBSL. This new armour, say the firm, provides a significant leap in survivability for the British Army’s Main Battle Tank fleet.

According to RBSL, 148 Challenger 3 tanks will be upgraded under a £800 million contract. The first two prototypes have already been produced this year, with six more expected soon. Ongoing testing is progressing well, and additional trials are set for 2025 to validate and refine the tank’s capabilities.

Will Gibby, Managing Director of RBSL, commented:

“I am proud that the product of RBSL’s capability is being showcased at DVD, supporting the event’s theme of ‘Working together to pull the future into the present’. The RBSL team is making great strides, with Challenger 3 completing successful non-destructive testing and further capability trials to come.”

He added:

“Not only has RBSL produced the most advanced and capable Main Battle Tank in NATO, but the development capability to deliver this programme – including the people, process, tools, facilities, and knowledge – are the building blocks needed to tailor new customer solutions.”

The Challenger 3 project is also generating significant employment opportunities, with nearly 300 jobs created at RBSL, including 130 engineers and 70 technicians. An additional 450 jobs have been generated across the UK supply chain, with a £40 million investment in the Telford facility.

Visitors to DVD 2024 can see the Challenger 3 in person at the British Army’s stand, where it will be the centrepiece of the event’s focus on cutting-edge military vehicle technology.

For more details, visit the British Army’s stand at DVD2024.

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

122 COMMENTS

    • Would need requisite expansion of supports from the REME, RLC, more HETs, and RAC Regiments to actually crew them.
      So uplifts in personnel.
      And the CS CSS areas and the RA ( both fires and air defence/ISTAR ) need prioritising over more Tanks that we lack the structure for.
      So I’d suggest starting with keeping what we currently have, the KRH, who form the third Armoured Regiment, and a more modest aim to up the buy to around 200, which is roughly what we have now.
      Armoured Brigades from the Cold War on usually have a single Armoured Regiment as part of their ORBAT, though some from the heyday of the 80s in BAOR had two.

      • I think sanity is to upgrade everything we have in inventory.

        The cost of upgrading the other 50 or so: while the line is hot is around £250m assuming there largest portion is sunk cost into R&D?

        New builds are at a level of fantasy and cost that MoD can’t sustain.

        Others, like the Poles, are doing big tank fleets, we need to do the specialised stuff.

        • Agree, we do not need a big tank fleet.

          We need a big, capable, RN,RAF, SF, and Intell capability. We need to do the niche enablers that set us apart and also give expeditionary capability.
          The Poles have the wolves at the door, and they are arming accordingly.

          I’m quite happy with an army with a modest uplift in CS CSS to enable another brigade or two and updating/replacing what we have with similar numbers.
          So 1 Division plus 1 Divsion with lighter OOA.

          If it is £250 million that is chicken feed defence finance wise.

          • Agree, tank fleet numbers are fine for the threat we face and it’s much better for the countries bordering the threat like Poland to have the heavier equipment while the maritime powers provide enablers.

          • It’s obvious there will not be an increase in CH3 numbers. At this point in MBT history we may be wise not to expand the numbers until a full analysis of the survivability of these machines on the modern battlefield. Ukraine is exposing too many weakness with current Western tanks but I’m sure new technology will overcome many known shortfalls. We all know that a review of expanding the CH3 fleet must have been requested and enough CH2 hulls will be available for a modest increase if required.

        • Like is so often the case the MOD has corrupted itself by prematurely scrapping anything it can lay its hands on which leaves or indeed could ever leave front line service. Tin sheds are cheap. Virtually no other front line nation has a Defence Department that is so unwise as the UK.

          • Treasury rules and doctrine.

            The doctrine is that if you keep anything it has to be either for parts [reduce to produce] harvesting or fully usable.

            The other end of the spectrum was ‘82.

            Virtually nothing was reactivatable in any sensible time period so nothing was…and that was in the days when we had dockyards and a steel industry to hand.

            If you keep garbage you have kept garbage.

            You also start fooling yourself, as Putin has done, that he has useful reserves.

        • Indeed it’s just good sense..250 million pounds for 50 modern MBTs is essentially a buy one get three free..that’s the sort of sensible defence pound you want to spend. Even if you still only go for 2 regiments..it’s worth the money to have that 50 vehicles in the attritional reserve….in the end only having 148 MBTs is one black swan event away from having to make a brand new MBT purchase at 20+ million a tank and all the costs of running two fleets.

      • Why not call these armoured units Combat Commands? It sums them up better than brigades which suggest single arm units. Patton the finest allied armour general of WW2 would understand.

        • “Patton the finest allied… self publicist.” you mean? Personally I’d give the title of finest allied armour general of WW2 to O’Connor

          • I’m going to go for Konstantin Konstantinovich, a man who was in prison before Germany invaded Russia and was very close to being shot by the communists party, and yet his actions in the defence of Moscow were pivotal as a defensive general of armour, he later then hammered Germany in the offensive actions of 43-45..whereever there was a turning point or critical campaign in the eastern front you would find Konstantin, he was wounded in action and he was happy to disregard bad orders from superior, which was major thing in an army that regularly shot generals.

          • Oh heck yes! His advances in North Africa may have been against a less well prepared Italian army, however, his maneuvering of units surpassed the thinking of all in the western hemisphere.

        • I don’t follow that logic J, but each to their own? For me, Brigades, forming Divisions, forming Corps, forming Armies is the standard.
          Commands tend to be rear area formations encompassing many non combatant and front line units in an admin capacity, so Home Command, Regional Command in our case.

          • Combat Commands are a very “American” term, especially from WW2. They where kind of like Brigade Battlegroups. So a division would have a pool of Battalions, three Combat Command HQ’s and assign the Battalions to the HQ’s as required.

      • If you want to be taken seriously then you need enough of them for a country to feel threatened . The U.K. used to be respected . Now countries don’t worry about offending the U.K. cause they no the U.K. can’t bring the pain to them

      • Agree preservation of the MBT force we have, so we can maintain 3 regiments or at worst have a whole regimens worth of attentional reserve if we do follow the plan down to 2 regiments. At 5.5million it’s a profoundly cheap tank and we should get the whole 213 while we can…otherwise I suspect as the security situation deteriorates we will only end up making a buy of a second MBT force..and that will cost 20+ million a pop and force running two MBT types.

        another 250million quid for 50 ultra modern MBTs is just worth the money…it’s essentially a buy one get three free offer,

      • 200 would be nice.Make sense to add anti armour capability to other vehicles like Ajax and boxer, javelin turrets? And a replacement for striker.Exactor numbers are miniscule.The Wolfram and brimstone equipped boxer look interesting!

        • I’d read a single Javelin ATGW might go on Boxer?
          I like the Brimstone on the Boxer, yes, need a Striker replacement.

          • As I’m sure you’re aware Daniele, ARES has been demo’d with Brimstone, 8 missiles in 2 launch boxes with reloads inside.

          • Morning Ian. Indeed. Putting this capability back into both the Armoured Cavalry on tracks and into the Mech Infantry Bns on wheels is highly desirable.
            I suspect though it would be one or the other?

    • All we really need to do is upgrade the whole present in inventory..this is a profoundly cheap tank..your brand new MBT is coming out at around £20million a pop…where as a challenger 3 comes out at 5.5million a pop..that’s 25% of the cost of any other western MBT…just refit all 213 tanks…it’s a modest number and will only cost an extra 250million.

    • Unless a new hull design is made you have a tank limited to 22 rounds of gun ammo and an existing engine. It would be wiser to join the next German or US program IMO if we want bigger numbers, keep C3 for 15 years or so whilst other capabilities are built up.
      The problem would be maintaining manufacturing capability , but presumably as they are only building the turrets from new another product could be built there.?

    • Let’s start with ordering enough trophy active defence systems to cover all the current builds. It is clear that the current plan is to have around half of the rebuilds actually available if needed.

      Clearly there isn’t enough cash available, so any extras isn’t happening.

    • See the previous Westminster government and their trickle funding if you want to start blaming anyone. I seem to recall a similar situation in Barrow, when they were trying to get the Astute programme into full gear. Years behind intended schedule.
      Warship building requires skilled workers and adequate facilities. Neither can exist without sufficient orders over time, unless you want to pay people to sit and have a cuppa for a few years, waiting for word. No orders means it takes time to work up to full staffing. A problem exacerbated by working on a new design.

      • You beat me to it! Plus in the situations you describe, the best people then leave for pastures new, retire, or just give up. Bit by bit the corporate knowledge/skills needed to deal with the real world problems dissipates – see Astute again. Reconstituting these capabilities is a very long hard road.

        • “very long hard road”.

          Could agree more and as you may have notice one of my ‘rant’ points. Experience takes time, engineering experience takes years and that only comes after years of training…

          Cheers CR

    • CR3 was designed some years before we saw attack drones at work in Ukraine, although they were not unknown elsewhere.
      I know of no ECM fitted to CR3, but then I hopefully wouldn’t know about anything that was or might be highly classified.
      The UK has a Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy that will address this.

    • Just was going to ask the same question. No c-uas RWS 12.5 or 7.62mm showing on top here? You’d think it’d be essential and not too difficult to add would it?

          • No? You asked about no 7.62 on top, I pointed out that if you look at the picture there literally is one in the same position as it always is, the loaders hatch.

          • Yes i can see the mount there. I was asking more about an actual RWS type fixture, probably more 12.5mm than 7.62 mm that could be used for c-uas.

          • Probably not any time in the near future. Challenger 3 specs predate the war, and adding CUAS would be exactly the kind of contract meddling people bemoan on projecets they don’t like, eg Ajax.

            Also an RWS won’t really give you much CUAS capability over a pintle mounted unless it comes with some serious sensor tech. I’d expect to see ECM be the focus more realistically and for it to be kept under wraps for a long time.

          • Thanks for the reply Dern. I’m sure the experts will have this one covered. I’m a bit old school going more by what can be seen!

  5. Apart from the obvious ‘need more’, once they’ve been upgraded, what next? We really need an ongoing process – gradually upgrade more on a rolling basis with a replacement also being developed.

        • I love UK tanks and you can see the heritage right onwards from the Cromwell. They have been built at a snails pace since the Chieftain, which to me says the line should never have been needed to have been closed down. Make 25 or so each year with a couple old bods and you keep the skills alive. Hand built a bit like Bentleys you could name the next one the Continental 4 or whatever.

          • Very much what Japan did with their Type 10’s, building about 10 per year since 2010, with the production line still running.

            Of course that would get a lot of people angry that it would take 20 years to replace the current challenger fleet…

      • Sandbox wars Graham, if it wasn’t needed in the Sandbox, it was either cut or starved of funding.

        10 years of that mentality in Whitehall and we can survey the damage done mate…

        It’s that simple really…..

  6. Wonder if they fixed the issue with the hull glacis plate armour? On C2, it allegedly on 70mm of RHA steel.

    Also, is it still true that only 60 sets of the Trophy active protection system is to be procured?

    • I’ve not seen anything that suggests we are getting g more sets, but, could have missed something along the way.
      If it’s still only 60ish, then it doesn’t really suggest we are sending more than 1 ABCT into harms way at any given juncture. Certainly wouldn’t want to be part of any follow on supporting units!

      • We will only deploy at Brigade level in future. The whole footprint of the army had been shrunk to that level, so that’s about it.

        We had better pick our wars ‘very’ carfully and decided what we can and can’t do in future…

          • Morning Graham, on paper perhaps.

            But when you look at the direction of travel, the tiny MBT order, the 60 Trophy systems, all the supporting elements, it points at Brigade level to me…

            I wouldn’t be surprised if the Army was further downsized in SDSR25, to match the funded equipment levels, in order to fund big ticket projects, like GCAP and what will probably be a raft of AUKUS phase 2/3 programmes.

            By example, I suspect an agreement on UK Ghost Bat procurement in SDSR25 as part of phase 2.

            The Mod is unlikely to get an increase in funding, so somthing will have to give, I suspect it will be the Army unfortunately.

      • So TES kits is it then for C3 also? Is there no space to add Farham/Epsom internally within the hull? (can’t recall which armour is internal and which is bolted on externally).

        Thank you Paul

        • Slight correction to Paul: It was always inteded to be augmented with a TES kit (which is why it’s so thin). Initially it was meant to have a big block of ERA armour attached to the lower glacis, but this was found to be not good enough during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. So instead it got replaced by a single block of Dorchester armour that is attached as TES.

  7. Should I be looking for savings and could reference the efficacy of tanks on the modern battlefield AND with hold the caveat of without fast air, I know where I would go for a saving…

    And don’t shoot the messenger.

  8. Is there going to be a remote weapons station? If so, what do they intend to use? General-purpose machine gun? It would be nice to see it integrated with anti-drone ability. I guess, it would turn it into a CWIS.

    • So we need 948 tanks? The last time we had 900+ tanks was in the middle and end of the Cold War.
      The Options for Change review of summer 1990 decided that the post-Cold War army needed a mere 386 tanks (CR2), [plus 22 Driver Training Tanks].

    • Expanding on Grahams reply…..948 Tanks!! 😳
      We had 13 Armoured Regiments in the late 80s, who fielded about 900 Tanks. Plus the FR Regiments on CVRT, plus the TA.
      We have 3 now.
      In the entire RAC we have 9 Regiments, plus the RAC Centre Training Regiment and the Regiments in the Army Reserve.
      Who crews these Tanks and the expansion of support infrastructure and CSS to support such a force, let alone the personnel, makes this suggestion ludicrous.

    • in reality optional numbers depend on how many type 56 tank regiments we have…at present we have 3 the plan is for 2…if we go to 2 then 148 tanks is OK if we are sensible and keep three regiments then 213 would just about do….

      if we had 950 tanks that would mean we would have around 15 armoured regiments..or 15 armoured brigades..so we would need another 30 armoured mech infantry battalions ( that’s another 2000 infantry fighting vehicles)..another 15 regiments of self propelled guns, 15 air defence regiments, 15 signals, 15 medical…transport…all of a sudden the British army has to have another 120 regiments and battalions and another 80,000 to 100,000 troops…another 250 artillery systems, 250 air defend systems, a few thousand AFVs all the transports and combat support needed….essentially the BAOR mark 2….or at least double the present budget…

  10. Why not get all the jigs and plans together to start constructing completely new CH3? There must be things like the main wheels that can be pulled out of the parts bin. Putin isn’t standing still and his Juggernaut will need stopping on the Rhine at latest.
    In fact in back in the day a big old firm like BAE, with all its resources would do this as a private venture.
    Give it a go!

  12. The main lesson drawn by many from the Ukraine war is the effectiveness of drones. I think there is a more important one. The build times of modern equipment, land , sea or air, are so long that you fight with what you have at the start. Replacing losses takes far too long for anything other than a really protracted war. Equally important, weapons and platforms that depend heavily on electronics are difficult and expensive to store. There isn’t an easy answer but having at least some reserves of AFVs, combat aircraft and warships is essential.Retaining further reserves of older simpler types of equipment should also be considered.
    Modernizing all remaining CH2 hulls would allow us to hold some in reserve and have an overall MBT fleet in similar numbers to France, Germany and Italy.

  13. Forces news Saying Putin wants the world’s 2nd largest Army 2nd only to China .Just thought our government maybe interested 🙄

    • A huge army incapable of successfully invading even your next door neighbour effectively is not a model we or anyone else needs to be worried about emulating.

  15. Is it 148 + 6 prototypes or 142 + 6 ?
    Are we retaining some of the driver training CH2s or are some CH3s going to be “training only”? There are a few variables that make this all a bit confusing. If it’s 148 full-fat that can all be deployed (when not in maintenance) then it’s not that bad, but if it’s 148 minus various sub-fleets that do not have the full set of working systems then it will start to seem like a fairly pointless endeavour

    • 148 is the number.
      That’s 2x Type 58 Regiments + Training fleet + Maintenance + Operational Reserve.

      The Turretless driver training tanks will probably remain though.

    • RBSL has been contracted to produce and deliver 148 CR3s. So the 8 pre-production (not prototype) tanks will be re-worked to production build standard in time, and issued as part of the 148.
      Good question about the CR2-era DTTs – not mentioned in the CR3 contract. It would be a huge waste of resources to use gun tanks for driver training – don’t think we have done that since the Chieftain era. I have never seen an announcement about driver training tanks in the CR3 era – they are required of course.

      We would never deploy all 148 – the two armoured regiments at Type 58 will account for 116 tanks. The other 32 will be in the Trg Org, Repair Pool and Attrition Reserve (don’t know the mix by numbers).

    • You have kept up and realise their has been NO upgrade to CR1/CR2 that is half the problem!
      As Graham has patiently pointed out multiple times Chieftain tanks went to base workshops in Germany started one end of the line say a MK5 and came out the other end after a rebuild a MK10 or so! This has never been done with Challenger tanks.

  17. I commend the joint position of CIA WILLIAM BURNS and SIS RICHARD MOORE on Ukraine strikes with long range high precision cruise missiles feel within Russia and the support given yo Israel in it’s justified fight in Lebanon and Gaza. I order you to proceed with strikes into Central Russia to diminish Putin’s security services GRU KGB military impunity in Ukraine and Africa.Hope you meet us doin with my Nigerian American wife Kate Grace Druzhinin GOLIK ZAGURSKY THOMAS GARCIA to discuss my upcoming tentative position as the chief of Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America.

  19. ‘RBSL has produced the most advanced and capable Main Battle Tank in NATO.’
    That’s what I call, putting your best foot forward!
    Kudos to all concerned.

  20. Geoffrey De ‘Haviland said “if it looks right, it probably is right”. 148 stings a bit but the UK is Navy > Air Force > Army.

  21. The dream of having more Challenger 3 battle tanks in the army does make sense, everyone knows that governmental bean-counting dictates the true reality. With the defence review now in progress, any changes to the tank fleet will be placed under the microscope once more with no change. The one thing that has come out of Ukraine is that land forces need to be streamlined to make it harder for the enemy to destroy friendly forces. The army will always use the division as the foundation, but the brigades are the weakness in the future. Task Forces maybe the answer, commanded by Colonels who control two battle-groups plus supporting assets – armoured TF’s would control thirty Challenger 3’s that would operate in mixed regiments with two armoured squadrons and two armoured cavalry squadrons, with one mechanised infantry battalion operating alongside it. Each division would have six task forces – 1x air-assault, 2x armoured, 3x light mechanised. Who knows what the future could be shaped towards after the defence review.

  23. True Any way we’ll to a point but we can’t spend less we have no army at all remember these are put companies build them be it uk granted but you’ll find that great British army bout 20

  24. So I’d think as a 1 of purchase we should scrap new builds ish as villages are being erected etc that a trillion go straight on the hardware have it sit stationary while training persist. My plan army be that keep the training going they have said ukraine is hindering training again true but lol there doing the actual fighting I’m sure it’s least we could do. So keep our own training going get kids in trained out life all while incase need recruits these ppl might 1 day volunteer etc gets ppl general state of readiness keeps the overall cost down with cost cutting measures in place for the war tax. 5 10 pound automatic charge per person UK and accepting donations aswell steady income foward war I’d be appealing to the patriot class there you see for money per week like 66milliom times 19 etc per week for troop numbers training for navy and army in general needs to be stepped up like but I have thought of a weapon to surpass lasers. Lasers apparently they don’t react to metal lime plasma would when instead of lasers we focus future research on plasma to essentially cut enemy ships lasers are usefull I heard of a nuclear powered ship such a weapon need hest and gasses if this is viable I’d like be credited

  25. Am I the only one that thinks a limited tank force is appropriate for the UK? Unless we intend to reinstate the BAOR, a strong Navy and Airforce is our best contribution to NATO to protect sea and air supply routes. As in past centuries it is up to the continental powers to supply land forces in bulk.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here