The Ministry of Defence has addressed questions about the future of the Challenger 3 programme, providing assurances about its progress even as the Strategic Defence Review proceeds.

Danny Kruger, MP for East Wiltshire, questioned the Ministry on two fronts: the potential impact of the review on the programme and discussions with the Army Board regarding the tanks.

In response to the first question on how the review might affect the programme, Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Defence, confirmed that the “Challenger 3 programme is an important programme and is on schedule to achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2027 and Full Operating Capability in 2030.”

He further noted that the Strategic Defence Review will guide future capability priorities, ensuring that the UK’s defence posture remains robust.

He stated, “The Strategic Defence Review will guide future capability development priorities, to ensure the United Kingdom is both secure at home and strong abroad—now and for the years to come. The Reviewers will report regularly on progress to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Secretary of State for Defence and will make their final report to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary—with recommendations—in the first half of 2025.”

Addressing Kruger’s second question about discussions with the Army Board, Pollard detailed that, “During his visit to Army HQ on 19 September, the Secretary of State for Defence met members of the Army Board and discussed a range of issues including the Army’s Equipment Plan supporting the Army’s modernisation.”

He reiterated that “The Challenger 3 programme remains an important programme and remains on schedule to achieve Initial Operating Capability in 2027 and Full Operating Capability in 2030.”

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

12 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Peter S
Peter S (@guest_861980)
9 days ago

Not sure it is worth reporting all these repetitive, semi evasive parliamentary answers. They rarely if ever reveal anything new.

Ex_Service
Ex_Service (@guest_862038)
9 days ago

timeline is not quick enough, nor units sufficient

Sam
Sam (@guest_862064)
9 days ago
Reply to  Ex_Service

That could be used to describe essentially any lan programme in the last 20 or so years.

Ex_Service
Ex_Service (@guest_862073)
9 days ago
Reply to  Sam

Doesn’t make it any less true.

148 is paltry to say the least, and explains the cost of the programme when it could easily be argued economies of scale with a larger quantity of tanks (incl. new builds) would get more bang for your buck (or pound) and sooner, with assurances that the replacement programme for the ‘3 will start after IOC.

Last edited 9 days ago by Ex_Service
Sam
Sam (@guest_862083)
9 days ago
Reply to  Ex_Service

I was agreeing with you, just that it’s a sorry state of affairs.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_862172)
8 days ago
Reply to  Ex_Service

The number 148 is predicated on the army only having two armoured regiments in the FS structure.
There is an inevitable impact on cutting the army’s manpower numbers time and time again – now at its smallest since the Napoleonic wars.

Marcus FARRINGTON
Marcus FARRINGTON (@guest_862106)
9 days ago

Usual talking shop rubbish.All C2s should have been gifted to Ukraine and UK reequip with K2 or KF51, min 250 units based on European continent for availability.Never happen.UK defence procurement is a never ending “Kick the can down the road game” played by all political parties.What MOD gets for what it spends is the biggest political scandal ever.Get Sir Alan Bates to have a look?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_862173)
8 days ago

Unfortunately an army with only two armoured regiments is never going to need 250+ tanks.

Jonno
Jonno (@guest_863167)
4 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

An Army with 2 tank regiments is not really an Army.

Amazing to me how careless the MOD has been in losing so many of the original build numbers. At least 200 lost is worthy of a detailed enquiry stating cause and responsibility.

That of course will never happen because the Old Pals Act will step in to save embarrassment and blame.

We desperately need a better system of Parliamentary enquiry with judicial powers and not just an ineffective talking shop. British people deserve better.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_863745)
3 days ago
Reply to  Jonno

200 CR2s lost, do you mean? Not sure any have been misplaced.

Cameron’s 2010 SDR saw the active fleet cut from 386 to 227, the delta of 159 being stored as inactive fleet tanks. ‘Active’ meaning a tank with a clearly defined role.

Several of those 159 (low 40s?) were apparently scrapped in the 2010 to 2016 time frame – no idea who granted authority to do that or the reasons but presume they had been very heavily cannibalised.

Peter Sparrow
Peter Sparrow (@guest_862184)
8 days ago

Why should the UK base tanks on the continent? It made sense until the Berlin Wall fell, but not now. Germany and Poland combined GDP is 2.5x bigger than Russia’s. Their population only @20 m smaller. So just these two NATO countries ought to be able to neutralize any Russian land threat.
In theory, UK could dispense with MBTs altogether. But countries that have done so- Netherlands, Canada- have soon reversed that decision.
I would prefer a larger fleet of upgraded Ch3s, if only to provide a meaningful reserve. @200 would give us similar numbers to France, Germany and Italy.

Noah B
Noah B (@guest_862369)
7 days ago

Challenger 3 is pointless if you ask me. It is 40 years outdated: Abrams (M1) and Leopard (2A4) did it 40 years ago when they were introduced. It’s gun and ammunition is the same as any other NATO MBT. However, it’s mobility is worse; it remains the same engine as the previous CR2, although it does have upgraded injection systems. MOD themselves have said ‘CR3 is more comparable to other NATO MBTs.’, implying it’s worse then other present day MBTs, and the CR2 isn’t really comparable.