The UK’s next main battle tank, the Challenger 3 (CR3), is under development and was displayed at this year’s Defence and Security Equipment International trade fair in London.
Prototypes are being trialled at the Armoured Trials and Development Unit at Bovington Camp in Dorset.
CR3 is expected to enter British Army service between 2027 and 2030. On paper, it appears to be a capable vehicle, pending confirmation from field trials conducted by Royal Armoured Corps personnel.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
Critics, however, note that Britain is procuring only 148 tanks, with just 60 active protection systems (APS) to be shared across the fleet. Given lessons from Ukraine, that looks risky. The tank also retains the 1,200 hp engine of its predecessor, Challenger 2, criticised by Ukrainian operators as underpowered for its weight. If CR3 approaches 80 tonnes in full combat configuration, questions remain over its mobility and whether British Army recovery and bridging assets can handle it. Its export prospects appear limited.
These criticisms, while valid, do not necessarily mean CR3 will be a poor vehicle. Yet it may represent the final iteration of a now obsolete design philosophy. The current generation of Western main battle tanks, Leopard 2, M1A2 Abrams, and now CR3, are increasingly seen as too large, heavy, costly, and vulnerable to justify further development along traditional lines. Modern battlefields have shown that one inexpensive drone can disable or destroy such machines, and their expense limits fleet size, reducing operational resilience.
Ukraine has shown that mass and redundancy matter. Despite their sophistication, Western tanks are too few to absorb combat attrition or mechanical losses. Their core design parameters, firepower, mobility, and protection, have remained largely unchanged for a century, even as threats have evolved. Designers historically prioritised frontal armour, but conflicts in Ukraine and Nagorno-Karabakh revealed that attacks now come from any direction, including above and below. The threat spectrum has become spherical.
Crew survivability is now paramount. The traditional three-crew turret layout is outdated when autoloaders and remote turrets are widely available. Future designs are likely to follow Russia’s T-14 Armata model, with crews enclosed in armoured capsules within the hull. This approach reduces the vehicle’s profile and weight, though it does not eliminate vulnerability to top or bottom attacks.
There is a strong case for a shift towards smaller, lighter, and cheaper tanks in the 45–50 tonne range. Such vehicles could feature remote turrets, crews in protected hull compartments, balanced armour coverage, and extensive use of APS and counter-drone defences.
That raises a strategic question: where does Britain go after Challenger 3? Some argue that with such limited numbers, the UK might be better leaving the tank business altogether. Others contend that a smaller, more affordable design could restore credible mass. NATO allies face similar dilemmas as they plan successors to Leopard 2, Abrams, and Leclerc.
The most likely path forward will be a collaborative European programme. France and Germany’s Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) aims to replace their current tanks but is not expected before the 2040s, if it survives competing national requirements. More promising in the near term is the Marine Armoured Tank of Europe (MARTE) initiative, led by Germany and supported by ten EU member states and Norway. MARTE aims to bridge the gap between Leopard 2 and MGCS with a new 130 mm-armed, 60–65 tonne tank featuring a remote turret and a three-person crew housed in the hull.
The UK should seriously consider joining MARTE. British firms could contribute to protection systems, optics, powertrains, and suspension, potentially securing both industrial participation and domestic manufacturing. Challenger 3 may serve as a capable stopgap, but it embodies a design philosophy already nearing obsolescence. Britain must look beyond it, and European collaboration offers the only realistic path forward.
Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a political and defence commentator and former army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk
Wasn’t that obvious to everyone ?
The shortage of APS can easily be resolved by just buying more !!
Ordering 148 doesn’t help.
A waste of effort, personnel and resources. Germany and Poland are heading for well over 1000 tanks betwen them backd by hundreds of artillery pieces. What are we to do with our “fully capable” sixty tanks? We would be better offf letting the E.U. members of NATO fight the land battle with the U.K. supporting the JEF block and providing additional naval and air cover.
When I joined the army in 1978 we had 900 chieftains to be reduced so far as 148 crazy and we’re still waiting for a replacement for as90 to give those tanks support
It is barny David. One government after another…cut,cut,cut. They can’t even seem to grasp the idea of joined up writing. Foreign policy and the ability to carry that policy out are so far adrift we are in real danger, with no money likely, to get to the point very soon that we won’t be able to carry out any role satisfactorily.
I know I’m ex ra I still work for them at larkhill I’ve witnessed over the last few year the cuts that have been made we gave away all of our as90 to Ukraine but with no replacement even though the Koreans were happy to build k9 here in the UK and base their European spares hub in the UK our great leader sunak chucked it in the bin crazy
Foreign policy? It would help if we had a Foreign Secretary for more than 5 minutes. First Lammy, then shuffled off and replaced by Cooper.
I thought one role of a FS was to develop relationships with counterparts to further the aims of your nation? That surely takes time, and patience?
Approaching approaching being obsolete?
Obsolescencesence?
Difficult to see how big tanks can survive drone wars currently. Things will change, but probably UK in a better situation not having too many big tanks right now.
I’m curious. I understand that Mr Crawford supports a Leopard II purchase? And has done for many years, as I recall reading many of his critiques that are anti Challenger II and III. So is there personal politics at play here?
So some of my assorted questions and ramblings.
Is Leopard II not too heavy too, or is its engine superior and it flies around like a Pz Mk3?
Is any vehicle truly safe on the battlefield against Drones? And enemy action in general? I guess no.
Do we then get rid of armoured vehicles and the Soldiers go on foot, or on MRZR Polaris “Golf Buggies” which are expendable? No, of course not.
Would a 60 tonne lighter vehicle negate the Drone threat? No.
Is only 60 tonnes or lighter better when at the same time other critiques slate Ajax, yes I know, a Armoured Cavalry Vehicle, for being too big!? Yet we are happily fielding that.
Would it mean they are suddenly cheaper and can be bought in bulk? No for me, not with my scepticism of the MIC and what it is there for….to fleece the tax payer for all it is worth.
Maybe we should have kept the CVRTs and just created new ones? Then people would be saying it is too light and not well protected.
Are MGCS and MARTE also too heavy? And will be caught up in endless political squabbles, equalling – France Germany first in all things. Like the car crash of a 6th Gen jet they are trying for at the moment.
We could go round in never ending circles here.
Are Russia still building heavy Tanks? If they are, why shouldn’t we?
Cost is also a factor. Leopard II, I learn from posters here, is, what, four or five times more expensive than a Ch3. And we want mass?
If we are only buying 148, and MBT capability is thus a very small part of the Army capability, then CH3 is cost effective, is it not? As long as they all get APS as standard.
I’d hope that given my countries history in developing and fielding Tanks then Ch3 will work just fine. My issue as always is with numbers, as Lt Crawford notes. If the Army is keeping 3 Armoured Regiments, as is now accepted by many, including me, then where are the spares for the repair pool, for trials ( ATDU ) Training ( Armour Centre ) and a small reserve?
And the APS, only 60.
Answers to the CGS, DS, and PM, though do they ever answer a question that has not been vetted first in advance?
This has all been done to death on here mate🙄Crawford has had it in for Challenger since before time began!leopards and Abrams in the latest configurations are mostly rebuilt from earlier marks are they obsolete before our CR3?
ONE CR2 got stuck in front of the press in Ukraine and the predator haven’t stopped churning out the narrative about how heavy they are,all western MBTs are 65-80t weight!
Challenger engines are rated at 1200 but the CV9a going into CR3 can be uprated to 1500 if needed,the power to the sprockets is not far different to a Leo as the engine cooling system uses more HP.
Not a rant at you mate by Christ some on here really need to get a grip and not listen to a bitter ex Col with a bee in his bonnet😡
Hi mate.
I know it wasn’t, we know each other well enough.
I’m of much the same opinion….I just try to be a bit more diplomatic sometimes! You said it.
😂👍
If Ch3, which along with Merkava 4 is the best protected tank available, is too vulnerable to cheap top attack missiles or drones, any less protected afv has no chance. Moving the whole crew into the hull doesn’t make the vehicle less susceptible to such munitions and brings the disadvantage of reduced situational awareness. If the need is for a more mobile affordable platform, it may be time to look again at a turretless design- lighter, low profile, easier to protect with top cage armour.
Worth noting that the main reason M 10 Booker was cancelled was weight growth to over 42 tons.
If countries cling to the idea of a single MBT design ( instead of the earlier mix of medium and heavy tanks), that design will inevitably be heavy.
The suggestion is that if we design a smaller, cheaper tank we will be able to buy more of them and therefore create mass. Anyone want to bet if that would actually happen, or would we just end up with the same number of smaller, cheaper tanks?
Agree. At inflated costs. As the PM and DS keep saying, it is all about jobs. Never mind the military.
I’m not at all sure.
The CH2s sent to UKR didn’t have the full armour package. Nor did they have anything like TROPHY.
So I’m not sure you can conclude that the properly equipped version is obsolete from the performance of the stripped down version?
Very few seem to take the survivability issue more broadly in the attack drone era. If a 65-80 tonne tank (ie any NATO tank) is vulnerable, then so is everything on the battlefield that is lighter (from IFVs & MIVs and SPGs to PM vehs to soft-skinned vehs and down to dismounted soldiers). So is all of that obsolete? ie we just scrap field armies…or do we put everything into countering the drones.
We of course do the latter and progress is underway.
Why the focus on just the MBT’s survivability? As others have said a ‘Crawford tank’ would be as vulnerable to an attack drone.
He is probably correct the tank will have a rebalancing of its protection mobility and firepower. But the basic premise of a mobile well protected vehicle with significant firepower remains.
One key question is what is the tank for is it killing other tanks or is it to provide direct fire support. The modern MBT design came about so it can kill other tanks.. 120mm gun are designed to defeat the front armour of an MBT and be effective at providing direct fire support.. the armour is designed to defend against 120mm gun kinetic attacks from the front.
But the modern threat to tanks is huge and wide ranging, via all parts of the vehicle .. even The IDF with its profoundly well protected MBTs with active defence systems and a massive attritional reserve are suffering ( it’s reported they burnt through half their huge 500+ reserves).
So the reality is modern combined armed conflict eats tanks so he’s correct preservation of crews and a large attritional reserve is key.. let’s remember in WW2 the British army considered an in theatre attritional reserve of 100% to be appropriate.
The western view of low reserves really grew from Cold War ideas that any war would be quick.. armies would clash and there would be either a political settlement or everyone would burn in nuclear fire.. gulf war 1 re-enforced the wests love affair with the idea of the short war.. but for all their wars that matter that ideas has been bollox.. most wars go on for years of attritional warfare and you need both a reserve and the ability to manufacture replacements.
So in any war that matters if the UK is deploying 1 MBT regiment as part of a division then its needs an in theatre reserve of 56 and the ability to manufacture that attritional reserve over and over…or it needs to accept that it may start the war with an MBT regiment with a cutting edge 80ton vehicle… but ends the war fighting in somthing that can be more mass produced.. the simple truth of mass in armoured warfare can be seen in the 75mm gun armed Sherman tank.. by 1944 it was utterly outclassed by a lot of German armour to an insane level but 50,000 Sherman’s were built vs 6000 panthers, 8000 panzer 4s and 1700 tigers…. The vastly inferior Sherman buried the German armoured divisions in numbers.
But challenger 3 is still a very very good idea for one simple reason.. it’s insanely cheap at 5.4 million a pop.. you cannot buy a boxer for that money.. a new German or US MBT would set us back 20-25 million a pop.. the only thing the army really needs to is go though and convert every old hull it can get as long as it’s bellow about 15 million conversion costs…
As for the future MBT replacement maybe it will have lighter physical armour more diffused across all planes..with active defence systems is the way forward.. but then how does that formation fight a traditional MBT formation without being cut apart by kinetic rounds.
All things are subjective until proven in actual combat. Deployment and use have a large bearing, the days of massed tank battles are history. No, the numbers to be procured are pathetic. Compared to the Poles and Germans that confirms their thinking. “Drones” and modern ATW’s have proved the vulnerability of Behemoth. As Danielle noted in a comment, CVRT were light and fast, now we are sending a 60 ton Ajax into that role..
I personally believe in “light and fast”, always thinking of the Legion having to be stopped as they were a few hundred miles from Baghdad. There is a fixation, fuelled by the MIC that heavy armour is the best thing since sliced bread. And it costs. Question, how many light and fast like the discontinued Booker could be had for the price of 148 of these heavy dinosaurs?
AJAX = 40 tonnes
What we need is lots of meetings and concept designs.
Well thats what we do with everything else.
Brilliant we shall send out a request for ideas with a target date of let’s say 2048…. Then we can post computer imaging of various projects but never actually do anything 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧