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 The traditional three-crew turret layout is outdated when autoloaders and remote turrets are widely available.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 ?
To the tax payers and general public with an interest…yes
With UAV doing so well…what’s wrong with something half the size…reliable autoloader and remote controlled?
The Chally 2 was always bemoaned for being a little gutless…so move to a new power pack or gas turbine…knock on Rolls Royce a door for goodness sake.
There’s so much wrong about this procurement that we can all see that it’ll roll out in 2032 (late) then quietly obsoleted within the decade for “New British technology” that’s current thinking now.
Rich, this charge that CR2 is a bit gutless (often made by Americans who want to deflect from the appalling performance of Abrams in the Ukraine war) needs amplification.
Yes, its CV12 puts out 1200hp and Abrams and Leo 2’s powerpacks (PP) put out 1500hp….however CR2 has vastly superior suspension (2nd gen hydropneumatic) that knocks the torsion bar system used by the other two tanks into a cocked hat, allowing for a much smoother (and very fast) ride. Thus, CR2 has the same cross-country speed as Leo2, however on the tarmacked road the latter is about 6mph faster, however that is not a terribly tactical way to cover ground in a war zone!
CR3 PP is capable of tweaking to 1500hp, but that would be at the expense of reduced reliability and durability and increased fuel consumption. It remains to be seen what RBSL choose to do for the Production versions.
CR3 is being built so its a bit late for a rethink. The tank after CR3 should however be revolutionary rather than evolutionary in design.
IOC for CR3 is 2027, FOC is 2030. I see no reason why it will be significantly late to service.
[I was the British PM adviser for Rheinmetall for a few months in 2016, whilst they were working up their Bid]
The shortage of APS can easily be resolved by just buying more !!
Exavtly. And would they ever transfer the 60 sets off the first 60 to the next 60 tanks? What if tanks are lost in battle, are they going to retrieve the APS sets? Why don’t these CR3s have a c-UAS rws on top? Or something more substantial than a GPMG and an exposed gunner? Not enough engine power, that can be fixed according to posters here?
Not enough tanks, why not a 120mm upgraded on some Ajax/Brooker chassis? Or buy a 50-60 lot of Leopards/Panthers/ Abrams forward stationed in Europe for easy interoperability with Allies? There must be some obvious options. You can’t just keep talking about “increasing lethality”….well, maybe you can….LOL.
Weight is the killer. Everyone laughs about the German “Maus” tank. But year by year, they keep getting closer. Bridges have limitations, which vary drastically by country. Roads, the same. Across country – it depends. Wrong time of year in the wrong place & even a 50t tank will struggle. A CV90 with a 120/105 might not be able to withstand a hit. So don’t get hit. APS, anti UAS RWS weigh a lot less than a CR3. Biggest advantage of a CR2 is a super accurate rifled gun. It’s still way overweight, but if you can hit before they can hit you, you usually win.
Ordering 148 doesn’t help.
An example of a tank in the lighter range identified is the Russian T-72. These have died in their thousands in Ukraine to no useful end so why would a tank of that size be an improvement for the west?. The problem with looking at the Ukraine war is that it is being fought without either side having air superiority. You can’t fight an all arms battle properly if one of the arms is missing – hence 3 years of stalemate and mass casualties on both sides. NATO ground forces were designed to fight with NATO having control of the air. This is NOT the same situation as Ukraine. Contrast Ukraine’s experience with Operation Rising Lion and what can be done when you have 5th gen jets and total air control. It’s chalk and cheese and so are the implications for ground forces.
What makes you so certain that NATO will have air superiority? That is a stupid way to design your military. The other side also get a say in the equation (& who the other side is can suddenly change). Hope for the best but plan for the worst. If any war goes on long enough, you will of necessity, be reduced to the basics.
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
We could use our 14 Archer SPG’s of course and in twenty years time the way we’re going the RCH 155, assuming there is a budget!!
Six archer permanently in Estonia one rolled on salisbury plain not sure of its current status I last heard all the engine mounts were buggered so they’re spread pretty thinly there’s also a shortage of light gun spares it’s laughable really
Crazy. We will get the RCH 155, no doubt, but how many in the end ? I ‘mnot and never have been convinced about Wheels either. We should at least look again at the K9/10, especially if the figure of over 200 artillery pieces touted is true, although I tkink it’s probably a pipe dream. commonality with several JEF members too.
Yes the k9 seems to be very popular with some other nato countries this idea of rch firing on the move sounds like very inaccurate fire to support troops I’m biased I was m109 and as90 so I prefer tracks for manoeuvrability and buying cv90 would have saved the mod millions
Ah, but you’re talking sense again! What next? Listening politicians?
Lol never happen we gave away all our as90 because some muppet in green kit told them they were outdated the feedback our workshop’s is getting from the Ukrainian lads is they’re performing exceptionally
Geoff, I doubt we would get 200 RCH-155. Typically we buy much less then half of what we originally had as a capability, ie 386 CR2 MBTs bought in the 90s to be eventally replaced by 148 CR3s. Going a little further back – 3,000 FV430s were replaced by just 789 Warriors (all variants).
[Clearly ORBATs change – I realise that. Just making the point that the army never increases its inventory size over predecessor equipment, as it keeps getting cut.]
We bought 179 AS-90s.
Sadly Grahem, you’re probably right. A hundred or so if we’re lucky and that will take years.
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?
I thought you didn’t like Lammy?
I don’t really “like” any minister in HMG, Labour or Tory, for some time, apart from Wallace, who I think did what he could in the circumstances.
But who I like or not does not matter. They have a job to do in my countries name, which I can respect.
And chopping and changing them surely does not help in this particular role where relationships matter.
How long has Lavrov been in post as example? It must help.
Our blasted politicians treat running my nation as a football game making substitutions on a whim to shore up their own position.
God, somewhere in this nation there must be a leader somewhere we can all respect and support…
Totally agree, we had the sick making view of Lammy pandering to that snivelling toad of a US vice President Vance imposing suffering upon the poor Cotswolds (or Hamptons abroad as it’s now becoming) because we thought for the sake of Britain someone has to do it, and yeah the insights in such casual holidaying with a conniving self serving useful idiot, just might with the right cues offer some value to the Govt in cross pond interactions and who knows casual thoughts about his boss, a sort of mind meld, might just give us a useful handle on US Regime unpredictability and Trump’s mental state. And yet a few weeks later all that pain comes to nought as he leaves the office (I still see it as sacked) and someone who was shocked that illegals are working in the newsagent version of Turkish Barbers in our high streets when told by a BBC less than undercover investigation team told her, takes over to grasp the slippery ball and the whole process goes back to zero no doubt. Geez you couldn’t make it up, my only consolation tonight is that Bill Bryson tells us we might think things are shite in Britain but by no means do they match the increasing Hell hole that the US is becoming and that we at least still retain the mental acuity to be able to recognise shiteness and want to put it right. For how much longer mind, for how much longer.
I’m hard put to remember the last time our foreign policy and defence policy were more or less in line. World War 2 perhaps.
That will not sit well with the British top brass or the Foreign Office. MBTs have been the mainstay of their land forces for decades, and no amount of nonsense about them being obsolete will stop their deployment in future. The CH3 is an embarrassment in terms of fleet numbers and insufficient active systems; the latter is simply a money issue. The UK does need a new battle tank, but one that is based on lessons learned from Ukraine and how the concept can be suited to new battlefield conditions. Sadly, that will take time and a smaller, lighter and more technologically advanced machine will surely follow. Ideally, a common vehicle for all NATO members built in their respective countries and available within the next ten years.
Well on the bright side if they are nearly obsolete it’s a stroke of political genius to only have 148 of these white elephants. Well if a fluke can be termed genius anyway.
In the meantime I am avidly awaiting the announcement of a new Committee made up of the coalition of the senile to decide what the replacement for the MBT just might be. Haven’t the Americans just put on ice the (re)introduction of a smaller lighter tank concept, or did I merely dream it.
The problem with the US machine was that it attempted to be the answer to too many requirements and failed in most. The same fate awaits a similar concept if the waters are muddied by too many cooks, so typical of standardised designs. However, a common NATO standard could be the only way to achieve a weapon that is affordable and manufactured in member states. Obviously, there would be additions and deletions depending on each nation’s needs, but these elements would come from a common pot. The American Sherman tank is probably the closest design to the Standard NATO MBT, not too big nor too expensive and in enough numbers, a capable platform when deployed on mass. Ukraine has demonstrated good and bad points of the current NATO MBT’s but the biggest drawback appears to be engine ratios to weight. The answer, as always, is somewhere in between.
Given the lack of anything resembling a useful defence budget I still question whether we can afford to go down the Tank route at all. the 148 C3’s would be a useful deployment in the JEF Baltic region perhaps, although artillery might be more useful overall. Beyond that?
With these numbers we effectively ARE letting them fight the land battle. That doesn’t mean we don’t need a tank anymore.
Maybe only 60 with APS? Even if we buy more kits we will probably only be able to deploy 90/100 by the time we take in training etc.
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 am glad to see you acknowledge the state of war will change. I am concerned that everyone is looking at Ukraine as the blueprint for future conflicts.
No doubt there are mountains of learnings. However, what I also know is that the next war will again be different.
The specific capabilities of both Russia and Ukraine during this moment, combined with their tactics, are what is deciding this war. A war involving NATO will introduce a lot of different capabilities and tactics and look highly different. The only thing I am certain of is that it wouldn’t look like the current war in Ukraine.
I continue to believe there’s a chance the drone threat could be lessened in this peer conflict scenario, either due to significant air superiority or other technological disablers. Yet, we divest from all things drones could threaten.
I was going to write the same thing I think we are in danger of assumeing any war in the future will be like Ukraine v Russia when we would never fight like that we wouldn’t move big expensive assets without having air superiority and these small model drones wouldn’t get 1 mile towards nato vehicles
The problem that is not being answered is if you don’t have air superiority, what then? Sitting there saying we won’t move till we do doesn’t work. The other side will move & you will loose.
So the air campaign would pretty much wipe out there air defence so that they would be fighting in pretty much uncontested space maybe some man pads etc if Russia moved to attack it would be destroyed from the air it’s inconceivable to think that nato (even a nato without the USA) wouldn’t dominate the air, these small model drones would either be grounded by ECM or hit with rifle sized machine gun turrets with small radars nato would not be forced into fighting like the Ukrainians are no general would
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.
😂👍
I think CH2 has been found a bit lacking in the power to weight ratio department, according to the Ukrainians. But, as you say, that’s not a particularly difficult fix. They were also using them in the direct fire role, and appreciating how robust they were. This was in Kursk I think, which is as close as the Ukrainian war has come to a NATO-style manoeuvre fight (minus several enablers), and they performed pretty well- so I honestly don’t think they’re as close to obsolete as some fear.
Despite apparently popular opinion, it takes many FPVs to take out a western MBT, normally by a lucky immobilising shot. Not unlike any other light AT munition. It’s just that FPVs have cameras on, so when they work it’s recorded!
No bother mate it just grinds my gears when everything British is rubbished! When called both Chally 1&2 with the right support have done the business. I’m sure that the same will apply to CR3 if and when push comes to shove.However there is not enough ordered!
Well said. Its an unfortunate British character trait. We love to moan, and to believe everyone else does it better. The 2012 Olympics being a very good example of that attitude. But what did we do? We putting on the best Olympic games the world has ever seen.
One CR2 bogged in driven by an inexperienced crew, and as anyone who’s been to BATUS could tell you, bogging in happens. What the critics love to ignore is how the bogged in CR2 was rescued by a more experienced crew in a CR2 that didn’t have dramas with the bog.
👍
Soils in northern Ukraine area can be 1.5 meters and 1 meter in south. They are good at retaining moisture, this is not good for tanks. Much of the soil structure will have been damaged and contaminated in combat zones.
HI Dern,
Hope you are well.
Didn’t that crew also survive the subsequent hits the tank took? If I remember rightly it was reported that at least some were hurt but they got out and away from the battle area… That says a lot to the effectiveness of the Challenger armour, especially as I understand the Russians started firing artillery at it as well, I believe, although that might have been after the crew had bailed and got out of the way…
Cheers
A bit of rationality for once. Not by any means claiming this to be taken as concrete but the information I get out of Ukraine gives as much praise for the C2 and its lethality as any concern over being under powered and I alternatively hear a lot of concerns over L2s as being too complex and unreliable and impossible to fix at the front. Certainly not hearing unfettered praise for any single tank variant overall.
I think his articles read as he has major axe to grind.
His opinions have been proven consistently wrong over Ukraine and the very successful deployment of CR2.
A weapon system like its predecessor that has excelled in every conflict despite to negative propaganda pushed by ex army officers media shills.
Exactly, Jim. FFS give CH3 a chance…..
Once so called self proclaimed for the most part experts of this ilk, once they start to criticise something often based on paper statistics simply can’t change their mindset no matter how real time evidence shows them to be wrong. You find this a lot in Astro physics, when someone has put so much time and effort into a theory (their life’s work or so it seems) nothing will prize them away from their theoretical almost religiously held beliefs. Military ‘experts’ who make a living out of being heard are just the very poor man’s version of this phenomena.
Loads of RAC soldiers support a Leo 2 purchase back to the Chieftain days. I know more than a few Cold Warriors who served in the BAOR and there is a general “we should have just bought Leopard” attitude amongst them, and has been for as long as I’ve known them.
Didn’t the US last week swat down 49 drones with a microwave weapon test? Drones may have a very short time in the battlefield sun.
And that is the very important point of interest isn’t it. What’s lethal today may not be tomorrow. Eggs in various baskets please.
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.
Slightly outdated now with the rise of fiber optic drones (though not entirely) but the advent of the Russian turtle tank did have people pointing out that it could be used as a EW hub defeat drones and protect tanks around it. It could sit slightly behind the flot, where the turtle armour wouldn’t affect it’s combat capability too much (and it’s still a tank) but the massive shed/cage made it hard for drones to target.
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.
Very good take I think. One interesting point about attrition. In the desert during the war the Germans had relatively few tanks, the Italians none of consequence. For some time this worked well for Rommel, while they were on the advance the numbers were of far less consequence because few tanks were right offs even when hit and could be retrieved and repaired for the most part or at worst used for spares keeping attrition and renewal on an even keel. This all changed during the 1st defensive Battle at Alamein when the usual outflanking moved despite initial success proved a sign of what to come. The tanks effectively behind British line were met by a pre planned defensive anti tank line for the first time complimented by 17pdrs which brought that advance to a sudden halt. Not only did the Germans lose a lot of tanks it was unable to retrieve damaged tanks and it never recovered as a result as the supply/retrieval/loses balance suddenly turned devastatingly against it. So the point is the strategic situation plus the effectiveness of anti tank weaponry combine to seriously effect how many tanks you keep in the field. You lose more in offensive operations but at the same time you can retrieve and repair more too if your offense is generally successful. So it’s not a straightforward formula, mass is only one factor.
Certainly on a strategic level the priority for Poland, Germany etc is far more ‘mass’ than it is for Britain that’s clear and obvious but equally clearly where the balance lies is the arguable point, and that’s of course integral to the greater argument of the tank’s obsolescence generally and what might replace it.
The repair and retrieve is interesting and it again sort of relates to 3 elements only one of which you can control.
1) control of the battlefield to allow the tank to be retrieved, if you cannot control the battlefield your not recovering the tank.
2) control any secondary explosion ( brewing up), if the ammunition explodes or there is a fuel fire it’s probably not going to be put back together.
3) what actually penetrates the tank. If it’s hit by a 50-100kg anti tank missile it’s probably not going to be something that can be repaired in theatre. A good example was a US Abrams friendly fire by a hellfire.. it was not a tank that was being put back together.
Early and mid WW2 most antitank weapons were small 20mm-50mm and they were light tanks in the 10-20ton range.. essentially small holes, light vehicles to tow away.. modern MBTs are 80tons to recover and many of the weapons to knock them out cause catastrophic damage or if not damage that requires out of theatre repair.. even by the end of WW2 while advancing the British found the need to have that 100% reserves..generally the German gunners would mobility kill the tank but then if they could they would keep knocking holes into it until it brewed up..there is evidence that in Ukraine if a vehicle gets mobility killed, both sides will keep plastering it until it’s a brewed up burning hulk.
I do wonder if actually direct fire platforms may soon become crew optional… If you have no fighting compartment it’s actually far easier to protect critical components and prevent it brewing up… less weight. Less chance of brewing up, the operators are away from the platform so safer.
Something worth noting, a lot of Drone kill footage is of vehicles that where M killed by other means.
Yep good point a classic case of keep hitting it until it’s burning and not recoverable.
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
Booker was discontinued because it was too heavy for the role. 148 Challengers (hardly Dinosaurs) would probably get you about 70 M10 Bookers, as a Booker costs about 9 million £ while a CR3 costs about 5.4million£.
Light and fast is relative. Few things move off road at more than 30mph, certainly not if they are intending to fight, so in practice your “fast and light” afv doesn’t present less of a target than a MBT moving at the same speed. And it’s less well protected.
Again there lies the balance a ‘tank’ 2/3rds the weight isn’t going to be 2/3rds the price, the active defences will for a start be the same and metal is cheap. So what is the balance between weight and effectiveness. No easy answer I suspect and no doubt deeply controversial. The real question changes when practical weight involving all the extra defensive measures is reached (arguable in and of itself) and thus a new approach is forced upon those charged with making decisions. Already seeing how messy that is and we are hardly entering the debate I think.
You will get almost nothing for the price we are playing for the 148 challenger 3s… they are cheaper than even a fully kitted boxer… the British government is paying 5.4ish million per tank, that is nothing.. 4-5 times cheaper than a new Abraham’s.. that is why all the arguments around..
The idea we should buy lighter direct fire platforms or buy a different MBT all utterly fall apart in the face of how cheap challenger 3 is.
The price of additional CH3 would likely go up, even if you used existing hulls because the best hulls will likely by included in the 148 buy. However, even if the MoD took up RBSL’s offer and procured new hulls to increase numbers any increase in price would likely be relatively modest, provided they did not massively change the hull design. One of the big expenses in the hull is the power plant and that is already being upgraded, so included in the £5.4m, isn’t it? The only thing I believe that might need to be improved upon is the transmission as someone suggested that the reason the full 1500hp of the new engine isn’t being utilised is that the transmission cannot take the extra power..!
So would new hulls cost say about and extra 2 to 3 million? If so the British Army could have a brand new tank, based on an existing design and largely already in production, for about 7.5 to 8.5 million quid…
I have been thinking about the drone trials the army carried out a few years ago now – remember the ones where the crew had to keep jumping out of their AFV’s to ‘pick up’ the little experimental vehicles trying to keep up with them? Sounds a bit of a joke, but what if those trials were actually successful in providing data for the development of effective control software, both in terms of the ability of the drone to make the decisions it needs to make and in the ability of the crew to direct the drone. Wouldn’t those drones be useful in ‘protecting’ the crew MBT? In other words rather than cramming ever more capability onto an already heavy lump on metal why not putting some of the ‘effectors’ onto the supporting drones. Autocannons on some to suppress anti tank teams, Directed Energy Weapons to counter drones (damaging RF weapons could still take down optic fiber controlled drones), and so on..? They are talking about networked battlefield – get on with it, don’t wait for the over priced Gucci kit from the big companies, get the masking tape out..! (Apparently, Lancasters flew with some new kit taped down under the navigators table as there was not time or space to put it any where else! SO only half joking!)
Cheers CR
In regards to drones this is what I have always thought.. stop waiting for perfect. The most import thing is getting massed practice so your army can fully develop its doctrines and your industry can ramp up and any old drones will do for that.. you need a mass of cheap drones of all sizes and shapes to practice both your drone and anti drone doctrines at all formation levels as well as develop the industrial base. Best example of this was German armoured warfare doctrines.. they built the panzer 1 purely as a way to train and develop doctrine as well as give their industry something to build that would develop the skill base.. they knew it was a heap of shite and never intended it for combat..although they did use it that way simply because war requires more. We need that view of things.
These criticisms are fair in some cases, but in others I feel they are a bit harsh.
The article uses the T14 as an example of the future of tanks, unmanned turrets and protected crew area in the hull etc.. yet the T14 itself it solid proof that this design philosophy has its own severe issues. The T14 is so complex and expensive that Russia can barely produce more than 10 and it has been plauged with technical issues. Same for the US Stryker MGS, which is also an unmanned turret and is plauged with issues. It’s a bit strange to call for a larger fleet of less costly/smaller tanks, while also calling for design choices that often significantly raise costs, vehicle complexity and even size.
I also think it’s quite harsh to compare the Challenger 3 to future tank projects, of which many have barely even left the drawing board and are still relegated to being a handful of tech demonstrators. The Challenger 3 is a tank which is actually entering production, which is more than can be said for the vast majority of these other projects.
However, the Challenger 3 desperately needs an upgrade in engine power, and I hope it gets one. The lack of engine power has been an issue since the Challenger 1, if it isnt addressed with the Challenger 3 that would be ridiculous. The other aspects of the tank are still very capable and I think the people at RBSL deserve some credit for modernising the Challenger 2 so well.
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 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Stuart Crawford, which is it, is the tank obsolete or is it not ordered in enough numbers?
Everyone else in the world and especially Ukraine is singing CR2 praises and the entire world seems to think CR3 is a cost effective pragmatic program to produce a good tank in limited numbers while we assess the future of armoured warfare.
But yet again you write negative shit with limited understanding of the situation only designed to criticise the UK armed forces.
You are everything we have gone to expect of the former British officer media shill.
This!
Rubbish. The Russians are still fielding T72/T80//T90s all of which are older designs than CH2/3, statistically these are the tanks its most likely to meet in combat.
Arguably all tanks are equally obsolete in age of drone warfare
1. Russian don’t care much about their tank crews
2. You assume no export plans, which is probably correct
Neither of those points relate to Challenger being labelled as obsolete.
Except it is, at least to the degree that any tank is obsolete. The idea of tanks being “safe” only originated in the Gulf War and Iraq war. In any other conflict they have suffered massive losses. However they still needed
Great point, just because there are substantial losses doesn’t automstically make it obsolete. The navy had great losses to submarines (and vice versa) during the war but neither were deemed obsolete or indeed was the question even a viable one, only questions about the design, technology or how they were used strategically were up for debate.
Yes, it looks like it. But, Russian tanks were stopped by Javelin, long before drones took over, and that was because they were a lot cheaper.
I don’t understand the comment “export prospects appear limited”. Given that we are producing zero new CR3 and the is therefore no production line for same and we are as I understand it utilising all the hulls that are in decent shape, export prospects are surely nil?
Part of the usp of the CR3 Upgrade, was that the Turret, being new with an up to date Armour Package could be offered for Export if a user wanted an increase in capability with a reduction in costs due to not having to fund a New complete MBT, pretty much the same situation as the BA,So far there have been no takers.
Thanks for that. Does that mean that the turret ring diameter and configuration would fit other more widely used tanks like earlier versions of Leopard, so they could accept the CR3 turret without major surgery? Just trying to understand as not really my area!
The sales blurb basically said it was designed to be used on other platforms if required, obviously Turret Ring differences would have to be overcome.
C2 to C3 is just to “keep the lights on”, for export you need to invest much more, the Korean have a very compelling offer and YouTube video last week they showed their new version will come with an auto loader, Trophy APS and new RCWS on the turret to better handle drones
We really should consider a deal with them, or is it already too late in the sense of setting up a European facity here that could have fed into European expansion? Have Poland nabbed that option?
Yes Poland has that option sorted.
NO NO NO challenge 2 to 3 is 20-25% of the cost of a new MBT..that’s why they are doing it.. £800 million would get you about 35-40 new Korean , US or German MBTs.
Well no surprises another waste of money. Drones are blowing the crap out of every tank going in Ukraine even the ones we donated are crap which are our current challenger 2 which Russian drones have disabled and then finished off. The UK forces are weak and will easily be defeated by any nation. I feel ashamed to be British. We once had great armed forces.
Listening to that I have doubts you are British as most of it is ridiculous even judged by those of us who are understandably cynical these days.
Russia destroyed 4 tanks in how long ? 2 years and there isn’t any other tank in the world that would have survived the same attacks however no crew have been killed unlike crew in other tanks who die quite often and as to your comment the British are weak are you serious ? The uk is one of the most powerful countrys in the world supplied by one of the most advanced defence industries in the world only a handful of countrys in the world have the abilty to build aircraft carriers and nuclear subs u clearly have no idea what you are talking about
David, Russia has killed just two CR2s, accoding to the Ukraine MoD, the first of which blundered into a minefield and was then hit by mass artillery and at least one Lancet drone. The tank is doing very well out there and is popuklar with the crews; it is clearly the best tank on the battlefield. Where on earth do you get your info – RT?
Interesting Engine comparrison stats.
CH3 = 1200 BHP and 80 tons.
Hayabusa = 194 BHP and 260KG’s.
Want a race Dern ? 🏍️💪😁
Why me? XD
Just thought you might have been a Tankie in the Army once, maybe, or maybe not !
You’re maybe 1/3 right.
What third of you was a tankie?
Both my legs are Trotsky-ites.
If you red line them, which has the higher decibel count?
Huh ?, speak up !!!!😁😁
The article says export options limited, I assume that means for the turret as there are no additional hulls, else we would get more than 148.
For an island our size , behind the armour mass of Poland and others we probably don’t need more as long as C3 , Boxer , Ajax, Ares are supported by suitable supporting assets such as lots of overwatch missiles and drones units and lots of ammo for M270 and the slow to arrive 155mm.
Manpower is scarce, GBAD and drone defence is more pressing than more tanks, defend critical assets behind the lines from drones, glide bombs, BM and cruise missiles. Another regiment of Tanks won’t do that.
It doesn’t matter how you cut the deck David, 148 Chally 3 is a chocolate teapot pot, it’s just pointless.
It should have been cancelled and an order for 250 replacement Tank X placed instead.
Three Armoured regiments are the absolute minimum to make even a token Armoured capability, go lower than that and you might as well jack it in and leave MBT’s to countries that take it seriously.
Below that number is below bare critical mass and just pissing money away on pointless nonsense.
60 trophy systems shows you they will only ever deploy a single regiment, that Regiment would deploy to Europe with 50 tanks that have nothing in common with our allies, except the ammo and the diesel they put in them.
Seriously, Chally 3, what a stupid bloody waste of money.
No be use it is actually possible to get more than 250 challenger 3s it is simply that HMG will only pay pennys.. your tank xx is around £20-25 million a pop that challenger 3 budget of £800 million would buy you about 35-40 of your xx tanks.. because HMG is only paying 5.4 million for each challenger 3.. that is essentially a buy 1 get 3 for free offer. There are actually 288 challenger 2s left available.. it’s simply only 148 can be converted within the 5.4 million budget.. of the rest 65 are still in the opperational fleet so would cost a bit more to convert..and 75 are none operational but I bet they could be converted for far far less than 20-25 million pounds.. infact if it tool 15 million ( three times the cost of the first best condition 148) is still essentially a MBT 25% cheaper than any other.
148 tanks is a massive amount of tanks yeah it’s not enough but 148 tanks deployed with all the other armour that attached is one hell of a force
Hi Tim,
148 total, that equates to 2 Regiments with 50 odd MBT’s each.
They are only buying 60 trophy systems in total.
That means they will only ever deploy one Regiment.
So 50 Chally 3’s in combat, is that better than nothing, thats debatable….
Back in the day when they reduced the force to three Regiments, the Army argued (successfully at the time), that any less than three was beyond absolute minimum critical mass.
I would argue that sending a single Armoured
Regiment to Europe in a NATO emergency, as part of a light UK Division, is perilously close to a Chocolate teapot.
Better than sod all, but only just.
John, don’t apply to get a job in the Treasury. Your proposal is many times more expensive.
Well I suppose we are spending billions on something that in all likelihood will never be used in anger Graham.
Bar a handful of Challengers deployed on UN duties in the 90’s, the only other time they have deployed since the end of the cold war are in both Gulf wars.
If we can only offer a single deployable Armoured Regiment, then the Americans would say
‘cheers, but we’re OK thanks’.
I can’t really visualise any other use for them, unless we plan on keeping one Regiment in the Baltic States perhaps and rotating it??
A Regiment deployed there would certainly be a useful deterrent..
We have written ourselves out of the MBT play when we reduced to two regiments, thats a very sad fact unfortunately…..
“Export”? We only have 148 Ch2 hulls being upgraded to CH3, after that we have no more & no manufacturing capability, or so I thought. So who’s going to knock our door down to buy tanks we don’t produce any more & can’t even be bothered to supply our own army with enough?
We need a new tank PDQ to replace/add mass to the Ch3s & obviously a better way to counter drones.
If we could be bothered to order more the jigs exist for the hulls and Rhienmettal have stated they can produce more CR3!
If we were taking Cold War 2 seriously mate, we would be increasing the size of the Army, ordering 350 MBT’s and restoring 5 Armoured Regiments, to make a minimum Tank effort.
In reality the biggest threat is no longer a 5 million strong army of soviet of armoured and mec divisions it’s an army of 600,000 mainly conscripts facing 1 million European soldiers.. our contribution land to that only needs to be one good heavy division and then a light division that can support in Europe or Africa.. the biggest issue for the UK is
1) air attack by cruise missiles and strategic air power
2) a long term attack against western maritime power.
3) nuclear attack
4) the ability to deter by inflicting maximum pain on another nation
For that we need a decent airforce ( 12 fast jet squadrons, 12 AEW aircraft, and air defences of our core infrastructure, ( GBAD for core infrastructure) a very strong navy ( full 4 squadron air wing on the carrier with AEW, 12 AAW destroyers, 12 ASW frigates, 12 GP frigates and a good nuclear deterrent ( full triad). The maximum pain is by developing a full range of conventional strategic strike missiles.. ground based 2500km cruises missiles, air launched 1000km range missiles, sub surface and surface based 1500km range cruise missiles. As well as some land based ballistic missiles.. there should be a couple of thousand of each type so we can keep hurting and hurting our opponents..
In full agreement, the only thing I would add to the Naval side of things is the projected lean manned T92 Catamarans, say 20 of them, capable of independent patrol or networked to T45/26/31.
Yep agree.. also have those same lean manned vessels able to act as a mother for the autonomous mine warfare capabilities as well 👍
There are actually a lot of hulls hanging around.. there are only 148 hulls that can be converted for 5.4 million each… that is an insanely low figure as a modern MBT is 20-25 million… really they should be converting all the hulls hanging around that could be converted for under 15million each as that is still 25% cheaper than any other MBT…. There are the 148 converted for 5.5million then there are 65 that are still in service but need more work so it’s likely they may cost a bit more..but not much, then are are 75 that are in long term storage that are not operational and so would probably need a bigger amount spend on each.l but I bet it’s not over 15 million… so they could essentially have a force of 288 which is plenty.
Totally agree, 148 is next to pointless…
Agree every tank that can be converted should be – even if the army isn’t big enough to take any more than 148 we still need spares and reserves, plus 148 is for an understrength armoured division anyway.
Allied armies, in victory, lost 10,000 tanks 1944-5. Tanks have always been vulnerable. Combined arms tactics mitigate that vulnerability. Drones are volume ATGW. Sensor array derived data fusion informing AI driven digital C2 in directing interceptor drones/GBAD and ECM will grip that (air superiority) problem.
So not much has changed. For conventional deterrence, NATO requires massed armoured divisions. Britain, forward defence preferable to combat in France or closer, must
play its part in that deterrence on Continentsl Europe, in depth.
Limited numbers of CR3 are all we have right now. CV90/120 is one quick fix lightweight option. Upgraded M1A1 from U.S. reserve stocks is another.
Only one thing is certain, to restore conventional deterrence in Europe, we must act quickly. We do not need a perfect solution. We only require a good and credible solution, two armoured divisions in short order as a bare minimum.
We know what to do. We have done it before. It works.
‘Action this day!’
Totally correct.
People have forgotten how intensely attritional near peer warfare is.
Example would be operation Goodwood during WW2. 400 British tanks lost in 2 days.
Drones have simply replaced older types of anti tank weapons.
By comparison, tanks and other AFVs redeemed themselves in both Gulf wars,
because at the time AFVs had adequate counter measures to the soviet anti tank weapons fielded by Iraq.
Tanks in the offense without air superiority are very much still effective under certsin circumstances, as they were around Bastogne eighty one years ago:
‘Russian forces recently conducted a company-sized and reinforced battalion-sized mechanized assault in the Kostyantynivka-Druzhkivka-Dobropillya areas in Donetsk Oblast after largely refraining from conducting larger mechanized assaults. Russian forces appear to be conducting these assaults during rainy weather conditions, as rain and high winds impede Ukrainian drone operations’
ISW 11 Oct 2025
They will have to get it remapped with bigger turbos and intercoolers. It worked with my RS6 lol.
It’s export prospects appear limited!!!
That’s putting it mildly!
But we don’t need to export it we just need to convert 250 challenger 2s to challenger 3 for the British army and the job is a good one.
The power plant details are not correct – the CH3 power plant is the same engine as the CH2 but it is a more powerful version. With computer controlled fuel injection and extra cooling. It is now rated by the manufacturer up to 15000bhp. So not 1200bhp. Also the transmission and hydrogas suspension hS been upgraded. So the tank’s mobility should be much improved. Ukraine is after more tanks not less and the UK should follow suit. The APS numbers can be filled with an UOR to add more. I think they should be fitted to all tanks as standard and to IFVs etc. we should salvage as many CH2s as we can and convert them to CH3.
Yep a modern MBT costs 20-25 million. The 148 challenger 3s are costing 5.4 million each, which is insanely cheap.. basically any hull that can be converted to a challenger three for less than 15 million is good value for money and I suspect that is definitely all the 200+ presently operational challenger 2s and probably a load of the tanks that have been removed from service and apparently shoved away somewhere to rot.
At the end of the day, the UK needs to decide what the military is for. Is it for minor interventions in Africa or South America? Or is it for a European defence force? It doesn’t matter what tank or IFV you use in the latter case. It’s more about numbers. And it’s about of all the stuff that the media never reports on like EW, logistics and stockpiles of munitions. Even the CR2 would be adequate if the rest of the system was sound
‘Future designs are likely to follow Russia’s T-14 Armata model’. LOL.
Im sure had read previously these are conversions of existing Chally 2 platforms to make the CR3?
If so how do ‘export prospects appear limited’ they are non existent!
The turret do keep up, it’s been mentioned a number of times above.
They’d work fine on our streets,clearing them of immigrants and insane leftie twats.
Nah, whenever Starmer creates yet another horrendous situation he just flies abroad, he’s got the police and David Lammy to absorb the fallout, he doesn’t need to spend money on expensive tanks when that money can be diverted to his pockets.
Trolls are in I see. Exceeding our tank numbers I fear.
The Challenger 3 programme was obviously not the way to go given its limited numbers, huge expense, poor mobility due to massive weight and the fact nobody else wants them. The last point alone (which applies to our assault rifle too) shows we are just blowing money on vanity projects. But hey, that’s the British way unfortunately, our politicians have never been able to stop themselves blowing hundreds of millions on white elephants.
CR3 is in many ways the ‘least worst option’ ,as others have pointed out the cost of the upgrade from CR2 versus buying a completely New MBT are very favourable,plus the Carrot of having the works carried out here in the UK.CR2 was the right Tank at the wrong time regarding Exports,CR3 has followed that in the same vein if not more so.European NATO Countries are looking at their MBT numbers and/or replacing legacy Stock,Leo 2 or M1 are the Tanks of choice,and now South Korea has gatecrashed the Party spectacularly with it’s K2 sales to Poland,there doesn’t seem any market share left for CR3.
The challenger 3 programme is not a huge expense.. it’s insanely cheap. Essentially the challenger 3 programme is a buy 1 tank get 3 for free programme.. a modern peer main battle tank is 20-25 million ( that is what you pay for the latests abrams or leopard 2 ) a challenger 3 is 5.4 million for a peer modern main battle tank.. it’s so cheap it’s not even a decision.. you can pay more for a Boxer APC.
Exemplified by current Russian operations in Ukraine:
‘Russian forces appear to be conducting these assaults during rainy weather conditions, as rain and high winds impede Ukrainian drone operations. Russian forces will likely continue to seize on bad weather as an opportunity to advance when Ukrainian forces cannot effectively fly drones. This dynamic underscores that Ukraine’s drone defenses depend on certain weather conditions and that drones alone are insufficient to defend against ground and armored forces.’
ISW 11 Oct 2025
And that is core.. most weapon systems have a restricted envelope of operations..Tanks on land have quit a wide envelope, that can work in all weather across amost all terrain, go a fair distance, and are able stay active in their area of operations for a long time..as well are cart around a lot of kinetic effectors… most drones are the exact opposite.Its like all of these people that keep insisting the warship is obsolete because of drones and missiles.. but completely fail to to take into consideration a drone or missile cannot cart thousands of tones of sensors, weapons and command and control capabilities to an AO 10,000kma away and stay there for a month.
The article raises valid concerns about the C3 programme, notably the small fleet size, the retention of the older powerpack, and limited active protection coverage. In a battlespace increasingly dominated by drones and top-attack munitions, relying solely on heavy armour and firepower is no longer enough. With only 148 tanks planned, the UK’s ability to sustain prolonged or high-intensity operations is questionable. That said, Rheinmetall has confirmed it could build additional Challenger 3s entirely from scratch if required, meaning industrial capacity is not the limiting factor—political will and funding are.
Still, describing Challenger 3 as “near obsolescence” overstates the case. It features a fully digital architecture, the NATO-standard 120 mm L55A1 smoothbore gun, and modular armour allowing future upgrades, including more comprehensive APS integration. While it may represent the final evolution of the traditional Western MBT, Challenger 3 remains a capable and adaptable platform that will keep the British Army relevant until a new, collaborative European design emerges.
I’m just going to point this out because people keep missing this point over and over.. the reason HMG are ordering challenger 3 is because it is INSANELY cheap £800 million for 148 modern 4th generation MBT.. everyone who keeps going we should or xx MBT from the US, Germany or Korea.. guys £800 million would buy you 35-40 of those Tanks not 148.. challenger 3 is a buy 1 get 3 for free offer. And for all those who say we need more and only 148 can be converted I call BS.. only 148 can be converted for the pittance that is 5.4 million. There are another 65 that are still on the books that may need a bit more work.. then there are another 75 in long term storage which would need a lot of work.. but they are none of them going to need 20 million of work.. so let’s tell a story
Your first 148 are easy at costing 5.4 million each so 800 million
Your second 65 are a bit more work and cost 7.5 million each for extra bits so cost 487 million
For final 75 cost a huge 15 million each as they are complete rebuilds so costs 1120million
That’s 288 4th generation MBTs for 2.4 billion pounds if you ordered 288 new Abrams that would set you back about 7.2 billion or 5.7 billion for 288 new German or Korean tanks….challenger 3 is an insane cheap MBT.
You might as well howl at the moon mate,I don’t know why but people just can’t get their heads around what your telling them,it’s an absolute no brainier to go with CR3!
Keep the faith it might get through eventually👍
That’s a fair and often-overlooked point. The Challenger 3 programme isn’t just about capability — it’s also about **cost-effectiveness and industrial sustainment**. At roughly **£800 million for 148 tanks**, the unit cost is remarkably low compared to importing new builds from the U.S., Germany, or South Korea, which would cost several times more. The UK is effectively getting a modernised, NATO-standard 4th-generation tank for around **£5–6 million apiece**, leveraging existing Challenger 2 hulls and domestic manufacturing expertise.
Rheinmetall has also confirmed it could build additional Challenger 3s from scratch if required, so the current 148 isn’t a hard limit — it’s a budgetary decision. Even a deeper rebuild of the remaining stored or reserve hulls, as that comment suggests, would still represent excellent value compared to foreign purchases. In short, Challenger 3 may not be revolutionary, but it offers **a highly capable and upgradeable MBT at a fraction of the cost** of its peers — a pragmatic choice that keeps British industry alive and the Army equipped for the next decade.
Agree with the MARTE idea. That, and any new MBT must have wider tracks (Think the Tiger Tank of WW2) for a lower ground pressure. If nothing else, the lessons of the Challenger II in Ukraine should really be included in the next-generation MBT.
Tanks are one thing I think we should probably buy off the shelf rather than produce our own. We simply don’t use enough of them ourselves to make it economically feasible – unless, of course, we can make one that is also successful on the export market. We do, however, need tanks, and a lot more than 148… I’m one of those that feels we need at least 500! Never going to happen.
But challenger 2 to 3 conversions are a hell of a lot cheaper than an off the shelf MBT and there are actually 288 challenger 2s hanging around that could be converted.
Talking more about the future really – but agree as many of those 288 should be converted as possible.
Yep agree post challenger I think our best bet would be working as part of a collaborative to be honest.
To all ‘ORBAT Kings’, especially Daniele, I’ve just found this on webdotarchivedot org under the heading Wayback Machine:
MODERN BRITISH ARMY EQUIPMENT (1950’S – 2000)
© Richard A. Rinaldi 2002
While concentrating on the period from the 1970’s to date (especially for non-AFV vehicles and weapons), material on armoured
vehicles of various types goes back to post-war equipment….
ARMOURED VEHICLES
TANKS
Challenger 2 MBT……. Total ordered 386 (originally 8 regiments at 38 each and 82 in reserve; changed under
SDR [Strategic Defence Review of 1998] to 6 regiments at 58 each with the remainder in reserve).Footnote 1
Footnote 1
However, since the introduction of Whole Fleet Management in 1999, each regiment has 30 tanks on strength—shared among the
squadrons as needed—and the rest of the Challenger 2 fleet is kept in storage at the Base Vehicle Depot in UK to be issued as and
when required by operations.
Clearly Mr Rinaldi incorrectly uses the phrase ‘in reserve’. Those tanks not in the Field Army are of course divided beteween the Trg Org, Repair Pool, Attrition Reserve (formerly called the War Maintenance Reserve (WMR))
That is interesting, especially the attritional reserve of 82, essentially they had 2 regiments worth of reserves ( 25%j and this was in a period everyone was planning for the next war to last a few weeks before either the west triggered MAD or there was a political settlement.. makes the planned attritional reserve of sweet FA ( maybe a sabre squadrons worth of tanks) seem even more foolish.
Hi Graham.
Only just seen your post.
Yes, pretty much as I recall regards totals from SDSR 98 onwards.
The low Tank total pre 98 hadn’t registered with me. Only 38.
Pretty much debunks whatever CRAP HMG come out with now regards 148 being enough, as J says.
Sir, as an ex-tanker (IIRC), you should know better.
Based on the feedback from Ukraine, the Ukrainians love Chally 2. For three reasons. The first is that using either HESH or CHARM rounds, Chally dominates the battlefield. They call is the sniper tank for a reason, the L30A1! May be old hat by today’s standards, but it can still split an up-armoured T90 apart. There was always the worry that the CHARM round could be defeated by the T90’s armour, but it doesn’t seem to be the case. The other reason they like it, which may come as a surprise, is the gunner’s and commander’s optics. Even though they are really 90’s tech, they have proven to be very able. I guess they are significantly better that what the Ukrainians were used to with their T72/T80 copies used. But the main reason why they really like the tank. Is that it can take a quite a few hits, but still let the crew escape. Something that they haven’t said about Abrams and Leopard, which I feel speaks volumes. Admittedly they have lost a few Challys now, but all their crews survived. Plus it has the boiling vessel (BV), where the other two types of Western tank do not. Gotta keep your troops happy! From what I’ve read, the Ukrainians would bite our hands off if there were more Challys available to them.
To enable a tank crew to fight in a modern war, you need to make sure they are firstly protected, but also provide them with means for situational awareness. The newer Dorchester armour allows this, but its weight/mass is a necessary evil. As the composition is needed to defeat high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) and armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS or Fin for short). However, this composite armour is designed to defeat tank rounds that are coming at it from either parallel or a shallow angle from the ground. To defeat these types of rounds coming directly from above, the tank would need to be another metre tall, which is totally impractical.
The drones that are being used against MBTs in Ukraine are either fitted with a RPG-7/9 or make use of a HEAT grenade. The drone operators fly the drone in to the top of the vehicle (engine deck, turret and drivers hatch), where the tank’s armour is traditionally thinner. Where the explosively formed jet slug can penetrate the much thinner armour. Hence one of the reasons for cope cages etc. However, HEAT is not a new type of weapon, we know how to defeat it. The easiest way is using air gaps. Where you place a thin sheet of metal, wire mesh, tubes of metal at a distance away from the main armour, to prematurely detonate the HEAT warhead. Where the jet slug doesn’t have the energy to cover the distance and then penetrate the armour. But this isn’t really practical, as shown by the Russians efforts in putting their tanks inside massive cages and barn like structures. As it firstly reduces the ability of the turret to turn, and secondly significantly reduces the crews visibility. Luckily there are currently no Fin rounds that are designed for top attacks (unless you are in an elevated position to fire down on the tank).
There are alternative methods. Explosive reactive armour (ERA) blocks have been a way to cheaply increase the tank’s effective armour protection. As they weigh considerably less than additional composite armour. Where today’s ERA can defeat both Fin rounds and HEAT. However, fitting ERA to the upper parts of the tank isn’t really practical, especially the turret. As it would mean the turret hatches remain shut at all times.
Realistically, the first method is find and kill the drone first. The UK’s MoD are actively pursuing this, where they are developing the vehicle’s remote weapons system (RWS) and linking it to either a basic video camera feed with a predictive tracking computer, or to additional sensors to automatically find and track airborne threats. The MoD so far are being cagey about what sensors are being used. But using a 50 Cal or GPMG, will be sufficient to take out drones at least a kilometre away. Another possible or likely sensor link up, is using a vehicle’s active protection system (APS) sensors. If this is Trophy or Iron First, then they can use an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, to search for and track threats. However, these radars, generally have a really short detection range (less than 1km). Where really you’d want to see and find threats before they get in range of your RWS. As it means you can engage threats at the maximum effective range of the RWS weapon system. By having a means to kinetically kill a drone, there are no issues with dealing with unjammable fibre-optic controlled drones.
Another method would require a redesign of the outer armour. This is a newish method devised by DSTl called electric armour. This relies on two metal plates separated by an air gap. Where you have a massive potential difference between the two. When a HEAT jet penetrates the other layer it will form a shorting bridge between the two plates. Where a very large electric current/voltage held in the inner plate is used to “blow out” the jet as the current/voltage transfers to the outer plate.
I do feel that putting all the crew in an armoured box in the hull sounds like a good plan. As you can drastically reduce the amount of armour needed for overall protection, especially for the turret. However, this does not take in to account of trying to find your enemy outside a training range. The crew will need to rely on electro-optics to see all round the vehicle. Whose going to be the poor sod, volunteered to go out side the vehicle to clean all the much of the optics, when the wiper blades fail? As the T14 Armata has been brought up, the crew can only view what is directly ahead of them and a little to the sides using episcopes. The cannot see over their shoulder or what is directly behind them. Meaning that the gunner’s and commander’s electro-optical sights are priority targets for snipers. As they can now easily mission kill a vehicle. But then as an ex-Lt-Col in the Army you should know this! As that is one of the primary tasks for our sniper teams.
A lot has been said about going down to a 3 man crew, by removing the loader and replacing them with an autoloader. The French have been doing it for years with their Leclercs. It will definitely need an autoloader, if the tank uses a larger 130/140mm main gun. As the one piece rounds are not only over 1m long but weigh around 30kg. Which manoeuvring around a turret from the hull is no longer practical, but will also seriously knacker out the loader. But who replaces the loader doing their other chores? Don’t get me wrong I think an autoloader has its place. But I also feel today, that a fourth person is still needed in the tank. Today I think their primary role would be not only manning the radio, but also the vehicles sensors. if as was alluded to during DSEI, that Chally 3 gets its own quadcopter type drone, who would operate it?
This comment deserves to be top of thread.
Davey, I liked the post. I guess you are American as you use the term ‘tanker’.
The term ‘sniper tank’ was certainly commonly used for CR2 when it was in its defensive role shooting from the edge of woodblocks in mid 2023 to July 2024 in southern Ukraine’s agricultural Zaporizhzhia Oblast primarily at night at hard targets some 3 to 5km distant, but it would be wrong to consider it to be only a defensive asset. Chally was selected to lead the offensive into the Kursk Oblast in Aug 2024, rather than Abrams, Leo2 or any T-series tanks.
According to the Ukrainian MoD, there have only been two confirmed kills of CR2s over the course of well over 2 years combat, although Russia (known to exaggerate) claims four.
You are right that UKR tank crews love CR2 and there are plenty of voxpop interviews with such crews on the internet – as you say, there are no videos which lavish praise on other western tanks. Abrams has been a disaster and many US Army generals who counselled the US Administration against its deployment to Ukraine in the first place have been proved right. Criticism of CR2 has been either by Orcs or Americans who are perhaps keen to distract, and thus deflect criticism being heaped on their own tank.
Mate I’m offended, you should wash your mouth out with soap.
Nah, I’m no spam.