The British Army’s newest Main Battle Tank, Challenger 3, is positioning the UK as a key player in the future of military vehicle development, according to Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL).
Benefiting from years of Main Battle Tank (MBT) development expertise, the Challenger 3 programme is set to influence the global defence landscape, the firm claim.
Developed at RBSL’s Telford facility, the Challenger 3 introduces a fully digital turret and advanced testing capabilities, making it the most lethal tank ever operated by British Armed Forces. The platform, which builds on the legacy of the Challenger 2, incorporates features like the Dynamic Turret Test Rig, designed to reduce development risks and improve testing efficiency.
According to Challenger 3 Engineering Director, Mark Critchley, “The ability to dynamically test turrets independently is a game-changer in Main Battle Tank development. Robust, repeatable testing across the performance envelope can be flexed for use on multiple platforms, minimising costs and enabling faster development times.”
The Challenger 3 programme, part of an £800 million contract, has created nearly 300 jobs within RBSL and an additional 450 jobs across the UK, with a £40 million investment in the Telford facility. This boosts the UK’s defence supply chain, with contributions from regions including the West Midlands, Glasgow, and Newcastle.
RBSL’s test facilities are setting new standards in tank development, say the firm, offering NATO allies and global partners access to highly adaptable tank solutions. The Challenger 3 is expected to influence the future of Main Battle Tank production, strengthening the UK’s position in the international defence market.
For more details on the Challenger 3 programme, visit the British Army website.
Sorry George but the statement below is not accurate:
“The platform, which builds on the legacy of the Challenger 2, incorporates features like the Dynamic Turret Test Rig, designed to reduce development risks and improve testing efficiency.
The programme or project may incorporate a test rig but the platform doesn’t.
cheers
Ian
Test comment for george.
Test reply.
Nothing. :/
Test comment
Yes
I have to say, the Challenger3 is an impressive looking beast.
Absolutely just wish more we’re on order but hey 😏
Leopardising C2
Chertsey had the Hull Motion Simulator on which a turret could be tested to its full capacity and beyond but due to cuts that is all history.
Does this just mean that due to the Challenger 3 project Rheinmetall has a lovely new turret test rig for all the other MBT projects they are involved with ? Next thing they will announce is that the CR3 is “World leading” by being able to camouflage the fact that it’s only half the number we need.
Sorry feeling slightly cynical today 🥴
The fact that there’s going to be half the number the UK needs is hardly the fault of RBSL (not Rheinmetall), is it?
Know the feeling 👍
Yes but on the positive side, if you have half as many as you need, you only loss half as many as you could have when it all goes wrong😵💫
“The Challenger 3 is expected to influence thefuture of Main Battle Tank production, strengthening the UK’s position in the international defence market.” Rebuilding 148 tanks with a new turret doesn’t influence any future tank anything sadly. It’s a clear message that the UK, the birth place of the tank is, to all intentions, out of the game and this is the Last throw of the dice. With such a small niche UK MBT requirement, we would at most be a very junior partner in someone else’s tank programme. Unless of of course we want to shovel even more scant defence… Read more »
Hopefully not. The US has been upgrading its Abrams for years. The latest M1E3 variant will I think be a reworking of existing hulls with a more fuel efficient powerplant and a planned weight reduction plus armour improvement( not sure how). Other than Poland, no European country has any plans to buy MBTs in the numbers seen in the cold war. So a cooperative European development might be the way to get some economies of scale, Germany France and Italy are all planning fleets of @ 200. Ideally we should increase our Ch3 numbers to a similar level. At the… Read more »
What percentage of revenue do the Germans invest in true R&D at Telford? Not including sustaining engineering and updates to legacy platforms – what Key products are they focusing on CVR(T) 2030? Is the TTR referenced the one that BAE built for WCSP? Before HMG decided to end A vehicle design & manufacturing in the UK? It’s sad to see a site that poured decades of A vehicle design and production knowledge into producing the prototype Boxer reduced to assembly & test and having to relearn basic skills- Telford is a shadow of it former self. HMG’s decision to go… Read more »
you’re not a fan then …. 😉
I believe the UK could have a use for the US built Booker medium tank. I’d like to see at least 120 Bookers in the British Army supporting CH3 and carrying out a broad span of more flexible functions that could possibly compromise the CH3? This new American tank is a capable machine and must be more rugged than Ajax or Boxer and adoption of Booker could allow considerably greater battlefield options. Rather than buy in complete Booker tanks the best choice would be to assemble the KD machines after the initial US built testing fleet. The Booker is a… Read more »
What chance would there be though that an unchanged US Army spec Booker would be acceptable to the UK? Going by past experience, we (the powers that be) would be wanting different engine/gearbox/comms fit etc, thereby producing a version years late, way over budget, and compromised design.
I’ll get me coat….
M10 Booker is based on a UK vehicle chassis (Ajax).
Learnt from UK investment and mistakes hence they use the excellent Horstman kit rather than the problematic Spanish kit that has caused issues. However my understanding is while UK money has been used to iron out the major problems with the Spanish design; the UK would receive no benefit from the profits made from their investment in GD
What you are saying is very true however, there is no time to do a protracted assessment nor bespoke design changes. The Booker is not cheap but is lighter and more rugged and fitted with a 105 m/m gun. This tank has excellent protection plus it’s also faster and more agile than CH3. If the US Army is committed to this vehicle then that’s a bloody good recommendation. The only possible time issue would be HD assembly through the UK factory. Predelivery training could be carried out in the US with senior trainers just as we did with F35.
The lat few points: Booker is not a slogger, it is in fact considerably more lightly armed and armoured than any MBT.
As for Boxer deletions, we don’t have enough Boxer mounted Infantry as it is. You want to delete some of the already limited infantry support in favour of a “nice to have” cavalry unit?
You are getting into semantics here, though slogger is a good description of some of the vehicle’s attributes. To off set Booker costs either Ajax or Boxer fleets should be reduced as the US machine is a more critical component when set against such a small CH3 fleet. The UK army needs to increase its heavy battlefield clout and Booker is about the best option out there at this time.