Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) has completed a series of Battlefield Mission serials for the Challenger 3 main battle tank, marking what the company describes as an important step forward in the programme’s development activity, according to a post on the company’s social media.

The trial platforms operated in representative conditions across a range of activities including cross-country mobility, road running, gunnery equipment operation, and full crew drills. Data and observations gathered are being fed directly back into the engineering baseline to support continuous improvement and ongoing maturation of the platform.

Nick, RBSL Programme Lead for Verification, said the activity was generating exactly the learning the programme needed at this stage. “Every serial helps build understanding, improve processes and strengthen confidence as we prepare for future formal trials.”

RBSL said the serials were also helping validate procedures, instrumentation, and trial methodologies ahead of formal trial phases. The work is being delivered in close collaboration with MoD stakeholders and industry partners.

Challenger 3 is the upgrade programme for the British Army’s Challenger 2 fleet, incorporating a new turret with a 120mm smoothbore gun compatible with NATO standard ammunition, a new fire control system, and improved sights. The upgrade is being delivered by RBSL, the joint venture between Rheinmetall and BAE Systems. The Army has contracted for 148 tanks to be upgraded to the Challenger 3 standard.

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
X

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

69 COMMENTS

  1. The UK should make efforts to acquire Omans challenger 2 tanks even if we don’t initially plan to use them. Challenger 3 appears to be one of the most capable MBTs on the planet and the program cost is quite modest. There may be future room to growth fleet and the only limitation appears to be the older hulls to work with although I have noticed that BAE appears to be offering it for export presumably with new hulls manufactured.

    However a large reserve fleet of challenger 2 hulls in storage would be very useful either way.

    • If Oman was in a hurry to rid itself of those 38(?) tanks, would not Ukraine be a better recipient? At least there, they could make up BCRs for the UAF and make up a larger force.

      Which then feeds into the argument that perhaps, if we have more hulls which could be returned to service (hold that thought), should they not be donated to the UAF.

      Economics. As a generalisation, Central Europe has often been a more cost effective place for manufacturing; little known fact, our steel for HS2 was coming from Ukraine; should we not donate those hulls declared unserviceable to the Ukrainians who might possibly make them battle worthy at less cost than the UK could hope to achieve?

    • Omani challengers are a different beast compared to our challengers! They are not compatible to be converted to CR3!

    • If unmanned vehicles are the way forward, rather than convert 40 year old second hand hills, couldn’t they build an unmanned op optionally manned tracked vehicle to accompany C3 at less risk? It could be smaller sized , mobile enough to keep pace with C3. A loyal wingman with Brimstone, Javelin or Martlet , or a drone deck to auto launch a drone so the tank doesn’t need to expose itself.
      That seems to be what Ajax should be in the modern age post Ukr war
      AI will be able to control these reducing workload on the C2 or Ajax crew, they deploy to create a wider sensor net and trip wire.
      You don’t necessarily need 80 tonne monsters anymore.

    • Agree. The MoD would be wise to upgrade every possible C2 to C3 standard. If we then place 60 tanks into storage then that is fine, they are an insurance policy against a major conflict.
      Omani C2s would be a very good idea if they are happy to sell them or give them back to us, although I can see the MoD simply handing them over to Ukraine.
      For a pitiful small sum of money, probably circa £100 million we could upgrade all C2s to C3 and probably buy back Omani C2s, allowing Oman to buy K2s or M1A2s

      • Having a reserve homeland quantity of 40-60 sounds sensible especially if it can be done cheapish and quickly. Drones are in fadhion noe but does anyone know how many tanks may be needed on any future eastern of northern battle front? Having more than current could mean potentially that all 148 could be deployed with a 25% reserve back home. And what’s happening with the “exports talk” for this tank?

      • Some C2s [chassis] in storage are simply not worth upgrading to the C3 standard.

        Idk about Omani C2s but I don’t think the MoD are looking to acquire them. There is talk of ‘export opportunities’. Probably some sort of upgrade service. I don’t think that involves purchasing the old chassis.

    • But the UK actually has 288 challenger 2 hulls in its fleet.. so there is actually a spare 140 challenger 2 hulls that could be converted.. now it would be more costly as the 148 are essentially the hulls that can be converted for the pissant 5.4 million pounds per tank budget that’s been allocated.

      Personally I think the army could go for three type 56 regiments.. then give the WRxY a full regimen of tanks so it can potentially deploy as a full regiment in time of war or provide full sabre squadrons.. for 224 tanks.. and the rest can be for training etc.

  2. 148, a ridiculous and insufficient number. Of course, this government didn’t order it because they haven’t ordered anything other than bringing in and harboring illegal immigrants to change the country’s demographics. Isn’t that genocide?

    • That’s not being done by illegal immigration. Illegal immigration numbers are a drop in the ocean compared to the legal immigration numbers. When you go around our towns/cities and see the massive demographics change, that’s all happened via legal means. The governments over the last few decades have done that through choice with their policy.

      • It was the Tories. They completely lost control of the border and in their last term in parliament allowed +4 million net migration into the UK changing our social demographic cohesion completely. Merkel got criticism in Germany for allowing 1-2 million in. Sunak, May, Truss, BoJo let in 4 million.

      • Indeed, despite the lie of ‘net’ migration as a measure, we still receive 818,000 legal migrants in 2025, apparently that’s a major improvement. Those sort of numbers would be a problem for large countries like China, never this small island.

          • I gave the last full year figure as that’s easier to understand than in quarters for legal migration, which is what I would have to do to include Q1 of 2026. Figures are there for Q1 on yougov if you need them.

  3. It says “Tank”.
    I’m hoping we actually get more than one.

    You never know with this bunch of DIP sticks at the helm !

  4. Why do we need a large army? 148 tanks will do, as will 72 RCH 155s, the way things are going the UK needs a larger Navy, better air defence and drone defence. Not a massive tanding Army. The Polish have got that covered as the Germand are building up thiers,oyrs Army would never get to fight on time and does not bring that much to the battle.
    How ever our Navy if worked is very important and use full, we can not have it all, no matter how up set some get we do not need a big Army any more, just a well equipt one.

    • Not necessarily. The small size of the BEF in 1914 and 1939 compared with the French and German armies may have been a major factor in the failure to deter Germany. In both wars, it took 2 years to expand the British Army and even longer for it to become competent.
      It would take longer still now, with no standing TA units ready to be mobilised.
      The same problem affects the RN and RAF. We have no reserve fleets and no equivalent to the US air national guard.

      • Peter S, the BEF in WW2 was not that small. By 27/9/39 some 152,000 troops had been landed in northern France and this number rapidly increased to a max of 390,000, the core of which was 10 divisions. This of course did not represent the entirety of the army. Some 368,491 British troops were evacuated from Dunkirk in May/June 1940.
        The TA was renamed the Army Reserve in 2012. A standing army consists entirely of full-time soldiers so of course no Army Reserve unit is a standing unit immediately ready to be mobilised. That is true the world over. However we have mobilised Army Reserve personnel in the past, in recent times at sub-unit level. The FP company at Camp Bastion was based on a TA company when I served there in 2008/9. I think the RIC in the Falklands was an Army Reserve company recently.

    • Couldn’t agree more. The best way for the U.K. to contribute globally and regionally is to have a sronger air force and navy. Another 40/50 tanks will make no difference. The RAF needs more Poseidons, Wedgetails and transport aircraft. The R.N needs it’s frigates built asap and the newly announced JEF partnership expanded.

      • We have no need or use for a large army and we would have to go massive to make much diffrence which we will not do and can not afford. Play to our good navy and RAF, yes have a very well equipt army but leave as it is, more ships and aircraft and GBAD will be a much better use of money and limited man power.
        Having 4/50 tanks is pointless the Poles and Germand, Swedes etc can hold the line while we hold the seas, massive armie are thing of the past and kit to easy knocked out by drones and loitering munitions.

        • Agree. If Ukraine can do with what it had in the beginning and has acquuired and what it has “invented” for itself I’m sure the Poles and the Germans can manage on the European plains.

          • I think they could, we should hold the Iceland/GreenLand gap, like we would of during the cold war, play to our strengh not our weekness. We are good at ASW and are re learning that skill.

            • You’re right. If we had the forces we had years ago we could undertake all manner of roles but our armed forces have been broken and it will take a decade at least to rebuild to a sensible level. That is if we start tomorrow and that is not goingto happen.

              • We have what we have, it is getting better but the days of a big army are gone, I know this will up set a few people but in thst respect its the right thing. Build the navy and RAfF up. But equip the smaller Army well. Play to our strengths ie a good Navy. Build up GBAD and we can do our bit i NATO. Other will have hold the line on land but we can do it at sea

      • How does your contingency plan work in order to push Russian forces out of Scandinavia from where much of our oil and gas comes?

      • ‘Norway’s army chief has said Oslo cannot exclude the possibility of a future Russian invasion of the country, suggesting Moscow could move on Norway to protect its nuclear assets stationed in the far north.

        “We don’t exclude a land grab from Russia as part of their plan to protect their own nuclear capabilities, which is the only thing they have left that actually threatens the United States,” said Gen Eirik Kristoffersen, Norway’s chief of defence.’ Feb 2026

        We get most of our oil and gas from Norway. How do we deter Russia from invading Norway without armoured divisions (which we don’t currently have)?

        • Firstly, if we didn’t have mad milliband in charge of energy we wouldn’t have to be so worried about buying oil and gas from Norway. From the defence point of view none of the Scandinavian countries bar Denmark are tank territory. Finland, Norway and Sweden are heavily forested and are best defended by local forces supported by special forces. Artillery and drones would also be part of the mix.

          • General von Falkenhorst, the last person to invade Norway, would be very surprised at your comment. He used tanks to great effect in support of infantry under conditions of complete air superiority. He would have used them to even greater effect had many of them not been consigned to the depths on the way over, torpedoed by the gallant HMS Sunfish.

            Russia lost over 2000 armoured vehicles in armoured operations in Finland during the ‘winter war’ 1939/40

            Sweden and Norway now have more tanks between them than the entire British Army. Finland, population 6 million, on its own, has 240 tanks.

            Even if we were to no longer require oil or gas from Norway, a Russian occupation of Norway would be a great deal more dangerous to our national security than were the air attacks mounted from there by the Luftwaffe’s Luftflotte 5 in 1940.

            We must join our NATO Allies as we have promised in the deterrence of Russia through a forward defence posture by land, sea and air.

            That will require a two division (at least one of them armoured) Army Corps with key equipment prepositioned, as set out in SDR 2025.

            • How are we going to recruit and how are we going to pay for it? We are hard put to put together three brigades.

              • Applications are up. Retention is the problem and that, again, requires political will.

                Pay for it?

                Getting rid of net zero subsidies releases £25.8 billion a year, a sum equivalent to nearly fifty per cent of UK annual spending on defence. That buys time for necessary reductions in other government spending. For example, Britain currently employs 550,000 civil servants doing the jobs done by 380,000 as recently as 2019.

    • We are committed to providing a two division army corps to NATO.

      Tanks still represent a key part of that commitment.

      ‘The main lesson of Ukraine is not the obsolescence of tanks and heavy armor, but the fact that no side can achieve its political objectives with missiles and drones alone. If deterrence fails, NATO will need to stop Russian forces, push them back, and defeat them on the ground, an impossible task without tanks and heavy armor.’

      Juraj Majcin, Policy Analyst, Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA).

      • Well its time to change that, we can not supply two fully manned and equipt Divs and back them up on ammo simple as that, we would only end up with a hodge podge of kit to make do two under gunned divs, thats helps no one. What was good years ago is not good now we can not afford it we have to choice god Navy/RAF well equipt but smmaller Army, better GBAD, no way can we have it all, Tell me what you would cut to fund two Divs?
        And light guns, etc are not part of an armoured Div they are worthless in contact flowing battle, light units just make up the numbers to look good on paper or in some one battle plan, bigger Army smaller navy/RAF bigger Navy/RAF smaller Army, which one would you pick?

        • It is not either/or. We require a great deal more spending on defence which we can very easily afford without increasing taxation by removing subsidies associated with the frankly mad pursuit of net zero.

          ‘In the period 2002 to the present, the total cost to the electricity consumer of those renewable electricity subsidy schemes that we can quantify has amounted to approximately £220 billion (in 2024 prices), equivalent to nearly £8,000 per household.
          The annual subsidy cost is currently £25.8 billion a year, a sum equivalent to nearly fifty per cent of UK annual spending on defence.
          Subsidy to renewable electricity generators now comprises about 40% of the total cost of electricity supply in the United Kingdom
          The total subsidy cost per unit of renewable electricity generated has risen by nearly 50% in real terms since 2005 and now stands at approximately £200/MWh.

          Renewable electricity generators have now enjoyed generous financial support for over twenty years without showing any significant progress towards independent economic viability. On the contrary, the requirement for such support seems to be rising. The public is surely entitled to ask when government will bring this extraordinary and insupportable level of subsidy to an end.’

            • I make no apologies for labouring the point. Britain is in mortal danger. None of the premises on which our current defence posture is based hold good any longer.

              We must take a long term view. That is what Russia is doing and they now have a great deal more combat experience than we do..

              ‘Senior Russian military officials have repeatedly stated their intent to rebuild a force capable of large-scale war with NATO…Russian military reconstitution efforts through 2030 will combine elements of the Russian military’s pre-2022 force structure, its current adaptations for positional warfare, and aspirational precision strike capabilities into a hybrid force, and will not pursue any one of these pathways to the exclusion of the others. Combat experience in Ukraine will shape the next generation of Russian officers, and the Russian military will integrate learning from Ukraine.’

              • I don’t dispute that we need considerably more spending on defence. It’s that climate drum you keep banging on a defence site I take issue with. That, and the endless unattributed quotes..

                • It is the mad pursuit of net zero that is preventing us re-equipping our military.

                  To find out the origins of the quotes, simply copy some of the text and insert in Google search. I normally provide links but cannot on here.

    • No. Saying “Let Eastern European countries deal with Russia on the ground” undermines the entire purpose of having a collective defence pact. Fighting in Eastern Europe is a central part of our national security as long as we are in collective defence. That means we need to, as one of the strongest nations in Europe, to provide credible land forces to fight. Not just throw our hands up and hide behind “well we are fighting the decrepit remains of the Russian Navy on a secondary front, but good luck Poland, go beat the Russian Army.”

      • yeah i am saying that they do the groung we do air and sea, any one who thinks we can do all three is dreaming, we supply the nucs, which cost us a vast amount, we can not do every thing, we have carries other countries supply escorts for them, that is how an alliance works. We not a rich or powerful country, we are skint.
        No welfare/net zero is going to get cut to pay for defence we have what we have, be stronge some where not every where, any thing else is pure fantasy land.

        • The numbers are set out above, clearly not fantasy. How did we manage it 1945-1994…and we are, by any measure, a great deal wealthier as a country than we were then. We simply lack the political will to even defend our own borders…

          • Well you stick to your views but we are not rich, we can not recruit enough in to the military. We can not afford a big Army, some thing haz to give and eat happened 35 years ago does not matter.
            No more money will be found no more cuts made fund defense ever m. It will NEVER happen. This stupid idea we can supply 2 divs us pure out of touch with reality we can not. Time see what we can do not what we would like to do.

            • Applications are up. Retention is the problem and that, again, requires political will. You will see. We will have two divisions, as set out in SDR 2025.

    • While I agree up to a point, an army of 72 000 really isn’t anything like big enough for a nation of 70 million. And nor are 148 tanks.

  6. How many rounds of 120 smoothbore have they squeezed in? I recall that earlier proposal meant Challenger with smoothbore could only carry 22 rounds. That would double the number of resupplies needed and take time.

  7. I want to see the UK building MBTs again, only this time as remote vehicles. The battlefield is changing fast to drones and remote vehicles, and within the next decade the market for such weapons will increase tenfold. A drone MBT may sound far-fetched in 2026; however, by 2050 I’m sure they will be commonplace, working alongside crewed MBTs. The UK should venture back into the business of heavy armour manufacturing; it’s what we have excelled at in the past and should do again.

  8. And we have the capability:

    ‘…with more than £8 million invested in the site in the past two years alone, modernising equipment, processes and facilities to remain at the cutting edge.

    These investments will enhance the company’s work in such projects as Challenger 3, as well as empowering its efforts to support future military needs. For example, new innovations include the development of remote-controlled breaching systems, such as WEEVIL, a specially adapted mine plough attached to a Warrior infantry fighting vehicle (IFV).

    Similarly, the BEACON remote control system enables armed forces to turn their fighting vehicles into optionally crewed robotic assets.’

    Pearson Engineering, Newcastle

  9. Just build new Cr3 hulls for goodness sake. The cost would be minimal but wouldn’t end in tears like the current plan.

  10. Incredible though it might seem it was exactly 10 years ago that I was contract-working for Rheinmetall on this project.

  11. The main threat to the security and stability of Europe is from Russia. Their modus operandi (and that of the USSR) has always been to conduct ground invasions of neighbouring countries using armoured forces, invariably huge forces. It is not for us to say that just, say, Germany, Poland and Finland should major in fielding significant ground forces (incorporating much armour) to deter and if necessary defend. All NATO members need to supply ground forces – that is what NATO does. Our remit is to provide the core of the ARRC (one of only two SACEUR strategic reserve formations) ie commander, HQ, Corps Tps units and and two divisions.

    The meat of our army should be those two divisions, but we need other troops in our army to meet non-NATO tasks and commitments. We cannot get away with a ridiculously small army. The Options for Change defence review cut the army by a whopping 25% to its new small, post-Cold War size – 120,000 regulars and 50,000 volunteer reservists. Cuts imposed since then have not been on the basis of a reduced threat but on a desire to switch money into social programmes.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here