The UK’s Challenger 3 tank programme has reached a key production milestone, with four prototype tanks already delivered and another four in build, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
Responding to a written question from Conservative MP James Cartlidge on 23 April 2025, Defence Minister Maria Eagle stated: “The Armour Main Battle Tank programme will deliver Challenger 3. The programme has now delivered four prototypes, with four more currently in build.”
The update marks significant progress in the UK’s drive to modernise its armoured forces. Eagle went on to confirm that: “Trials have already proven Challenger 3’s basic firing capability, mechanical design, and structural strength. The next set of trials are due to start in Quarter 2 2025.”
The Challenger 3 is being developed to replace the British Army’s ageing Challenger 2 fleet and features extensive upgrades, including a new turret and Rheinmetall’s NATO-standard 120mm smoothbore gun. These changes are intended to improve lethality, interoperability and survivability on future battlefields.
In addition to hardware enhancements, the programme also includes international cooperation. As Eagle highlighted: “Among the improvements underway which will significantly enhance Challenger 3’s performance over Challenger 2, the programme is working under a bilateral UK/Germany agreement to qualify Enhanced Kinetic Energy ammunition.”
That agreement is expected to ensure compatibility and standardisation across NATO partners, reinforcing the UK’s role within the alliance’s heavy armour capability.
The UK has committed to delivering 148 Challenger 3 tanks, with Initial Operating Capability set for 2027.
With eight tanks now in production or delivered and the next trials phase imminent, the Challenger 3 programme is moving steadily toward its operational debut — bringing modernised, NATO-aligned armour back to the forefront of British land power.
Well with 4 new challenges we could take the world on hahaha 😆
As long the Russians only have 3. :p
Anyone seen a comments section lately ?
Hopefully SDSR will announce more than the laughably small number of just 100.
I think the C3 platform could become the basis of future European MBTs.
British army needs to upgrade every available C2 to C3 standard and if that can’t be done then look to restarting production. Rheinmetall have stated they’d be happy to build a C3 from scratch as the tooling for Leopard 2A7 versions can do the job.
So a prudent additional 100 tanks?
They can be stored away if not used immediately and/ or upgrade all C2 to C3 standards. Aiming for 220+ tanks. Enough for 3 armoured regiments.
Next issue is the Trophy APS sets. Only 67 sets ordered, which is maddening. All these tanks should have trophy fitted and enough submunitions ordered for resilience and to manage high intensity warfare. So that’ll be 220+ sets and tens of thousands of their submunitions.
Total all that up. Additionally 80 C2 to C3 tanks- £120 million, trophy APS systems and submunitions- £100 million. Order for additional 100 new built C3s- £500 million. Not huge sums of money to have the very best MBT fleet in Europe.
Because everything is being moderated.
Notice how the spam crap has gone too?
No doubt a temporary fix.
I think people are just fed up or don’t really know what to say any more. Our enemies possess thousands of armoured fighting vehicles of all types – but after long months, if not years, of bragging about the Challenger 3 (the tank the world doesn’t want), we’ve got 4 of them.
Our military forces wouldn’t last a couple of weeks and that’s if we were lucky.
I can’t understand why the government doesn’t see this, or care about it if it does.
Wow we might have a squadrons worth by the time the next war ends!
What do you expect, Tankograd at Magnitogorsk?
We cannot knock them out at that rate!
Brian, war waits for no man. IOC is 2027, FOC is 2030. Chally 2 should have been significantly incrementally upgraded years ago. We always used to do that up to and including Chieftain.
“build”? Is that quite right? I thought these upgrades to current Challenger 2 chassis…
I would say that the ‘upgrade’ is significant and involved enough to warrant the term build. As far as I understand, the hulls are being gutted, completely refurbed inside, a completely new turret is being integrated, etc.
It’s basically a new tank. Only part reused is the hull. New turret and drive train suspension gun and fire control system. It’s basically a new tank. But we are limited to how many we can build because we used challenger 2’s hulls.
Luke, nothing wrong with the phrase ‘build’. It is not solely tied to building a new equipment from scratch. Many will refer to the production line as a build line. Quite probably donor tanks will have old turrets removed and also everything stripped off and out of the Hull. You then modify the Hull if required and build it back up into a tank again. This is akin to remanufacture.
It is a Build by most definitions of the word – simply put a brand new Turret mated to an upgraded /refurbished Hull.
You’d think when they decided to upgrade it they would have put in a powerpack with a least 1500hp so it could keep up with the abrams and leapord on he battlefield. But no it’s the same underpowered, unreliable 1200hp it always had. Why do British tanks always have crap engines. They have had 70 years to learn that lesson.
M1 and Challenger have the exact same off road top speed…
And the Challenger has better suspension than Abrams or Leo 2 as well…
My old headmaster, a Royce engineer (all his fractions were in full size numbers) had been instrumental in developing the Meteor from the Merlin engine in WW 2 which went on the power the Cromwell, Comet and Centurion. Meanwhile my father was with the first squadron of Fairey Firefly aircraft, on operations, testing the Griffon. maybe we should have put the Griffon in our tanks.
Its disappointing not to have fitted a 1500hp motor and modified the hull. Only 148, Putin will be quaking in his boots. We need a new production line and anti drone protection.
How our Government can sleep at night, I cant imagine.
It is but it’s pretty much a complete overhaul
Any odds offered re MoD authorization of additional CR-3 conversions, resulting from SDR recommendations? 🤔🤞
Depends how many of the other hull’s at Aschurch are in a decent condition?
I’m all in favour of upgrading any that meet specs but I don’t think it will be a huge number.
Unlikely mate,
We can but hope. There have been numerous discussions on this subject with two basic point of views. 1) The are additional hulls that could be used, 2) the unused hulls are not beyond use…
Not sure about the second view, might just be that the cost of refurbishing many of the remaining hulls broke the budget i.e. technically could be done but deemed too costly. BAE / Rheinmetall offered new build hulls early in the program. Given the way things are going we might yet need to see more Chally 3 being produced so a all new Chally 3B whilst unlikely is probably not entirely out of the question.
Cheers CR
Will we ever see the SDR? I was watching an interview with Robert Fox a couple of days ago (Times Radio) when he said that the report had been on the Prime Minister’s desk since early March and was effectively being sat on.
God I hope so. See comment above. It’s madness the current situation.
On Govs website it states. Published 26th march.
Intention to publish SDSR before the NATO summit on 24-26th June. So a little while longer to wait. Pity really as we could do with some firm commitments.
F/USAF, If SDR allows the Future Soldier Orbat to be rejigged to formally retain the 3rd armoured regiment, then a corollary is that more than 148 CR3s have to be built. Otherwise I am not holding my breath. Since 1953 the army has only ever reduced in size following each and every defence review.
However if the army convinces the beancounters that more tanks are needed for the Training organisation, Repair Pool and/or Attrition Reserve, then maybe a small number more might be agreed.
That’s true Graham, but the disastrous 2010 review pushed past the line in the sand and pulled out most of the lions teeth.
Since then, the US has regarding UK defence capability as ‘niche’, with the last vestiges of anything you could reasonably argue had at least a ‘mass’ element to it destroyed.
When the Army dropped to two Armoured regiments and 148 MBT’s, it dropped below critical mass.
They clearly only intend to deploy one at a time, so is there really any point, as an island nation, having 50 odd deployable tanks??
We’ve only deployed in strength twice in tbe last 35 years, in the event of another Anglo American bun fight, the Yanks would probably say, thanks, but don’t bother, you can’t contribute any meaningful mass.
It’s a difficult one, but I would say, restore three Armoured Regiments and rebuild 250 Chally 2’s, or scrap the lot and have a rethink.
I see zero point to having so few gold plated assets, that they can’t deploy in sufficient strength to hold the line sadly.
GM,
Understand Orbat requirement/constraint. My contention is that BA should reevaluate attrition reserve estimate, based upon most recent conflict data, i.e., Ukraine. The only constraint BA should consider is the number of viable CR-2 hulls practically capable of conversion. Clearly fiscally improbable to contemplate new build CR-3s. Uncle Sugar has an analogous issue, (~ 2200-2500 in various condition) M1A1s stored in warehouses, potentially available for conversion to M1A2 SEPv3 standard. Should be an intuitively obvious decision, but alas…🤔🙄
We all hope so, but no that is too sensible for MOD and the CDS. Better to have not enough or just enough as long none get hit. break down, need spares etc the true MOD way saving a few pounds in the short run only.
Will these 8 tanks ever join the frontline fleet, or are they only for trials? In other words, is the future fleet 148 or 140 tanks?
Yes, the announced plan is for the prototype/trials units to be fully upgraded to the common final spec.
I think the 148 includes the 8 prototypes, so only 140 production units.
Of the 8 prototypes I’d reckon a few will be retained for future upgrade / weapons trials, and the rest will probably be canabalised for spare parts over time.
Good question, but suspect the answer is 148. Numbers are tight anyway, if most of the work is done bringing them to prototype standard they’ll likely get the full upgrade and be brought into use.
They will be part of the Active Fleet,either Deployed,in Maintenance or part of the Attrition Reserve.
Yes – they will be upgraded to production standard to maintain the 148 tank number.
Blue, those 8 will eventually be brought up to the latest build standard and issued/reissued. Those 8 are part of the 148.
Generally a trials vehicle is not the main production vehicle, as it has various sensors added to it, plus any faults found during the trials are incorporated in the production vehicle. After the trials and the production vehicles are built, the trials vehicles usually are added to the production run to incorporate any modifications to bring them up to production standard.
I would think that the trials and training squadron at Bovington will continue to have 16 tanks, so these prototypes will maybe end up there. With 148 CR3 on order, there’s enough to form 2 tank regts, a field training sqn at probably Sennelager and the Bovington unit. That lot adds up to 148 tanks exactly, so the prototypes will all be needed.
But we need a good bit more than 148. We really should be able to deploy a fully-formed armoured infantry bde group, with 3 tank regts. It is little enough for our supposed leading role in NATO. We also need at minimum a 25% reserve; 148 tanks means no wartime reserves at all. We are basically about 120 short.
If the will was there, there are easily enough serviceable hulls that could be rebuilt and converted to CR3. I think there are two obstacles in the way. (1) the AFV programme is decades behind, we have not produced a new tracked armoured vehicle for 20 or more years, so there are many calls on the limited budget. (2) There is still a doctrinal/cost-saving tug-of-war in the MOD between the enthusiastic supporters of ‘ transformational’ medium wheeled platforms and those advocating the heavier end of well-protected, better armed tracked vehicles. The latter is the priority for almost all our NATO allies, but we still seem to be in a bit of a doctrinal muddle.
Another 100 new build would be a good investment. Personally in an ideal unlimited money world, I would have went for a modest upgrade to extend service life and went for leapord 2 or K2 new builds.
The challengers being phased out and stored as the new tanks came online.
Challenger 3 just needs some extra units, some new shells aswell, air burst, anti personnel etc.
My ha’penny worth is that there is zero chance of any CR3 new builds, the unit cost would be horrendous for a small order (50? 100?) and I thus just can’t see SDR2025 recommending any significant increase in the British Army’s MBT strength (e.g. three rather than two regular tank regiments).
It’s been previously posted on this site that there may be enough viable CR2s hulls available for a dozen extra CR3 conversions, i.e. 160 total. That presumably wouldn’t cost too much and would allow a company worth of tanks (14?) to be left permanently for training purposes in Canada (BATUS) or Oman (OBJTA).
It would make sense for the UK to join as a minor partner the Franco-German Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) project, giving a route forward for replacement of the CR3 in the 20240’s whilst also gaining a modest workshare.
Fantasy.
If anything, we’d be better off waiting for the Franco German project, then add our own systems and armour but there is no hope nor money.
Monkey. A modest upgrade would not have cut it. Almost nothing has been done to upgrade CR2 since first issue in 1998.
These very belated upgrades are £5m a copy. New tanks would be far more than that.
The L55A1 main advantage over the L30A1, is that it can fire not only longer armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) rounds, but also multi-purpose programmable ammunition. These are based around a high explosive anti-tank (HEAT) round, but due to the type of fusing can also initiate fragmentary effects. This when used with a timed fuse allows for airburst over trenches or delayed detonations, for behind wall affects.
To be honest why would we buy L2 when we can just upgrade c2 ? Do u not remember the problems when certain countrys wanted to send L2 to Ukraine and Germany said no we do not need to buy equipment where we need to get permission first to use it as to the k2 there are a lot of things about that tank that are good but it has suffered before with transmission problems so it now uses a German one same with the engine they later developed there own which I’m not sure how that has gone there are a lot of things on the k2 that are untested , what we should do is develop our own or partner with another country and build from the ground up we are a major economy in the world there are no excuses why we can’t
We should join with Australia ( and Canada and New Zealand perhaps) and form an arms purchasing scheme with people we should be able to trust. Can they trust us?
Indeed, wasting money on a dead project is precisely how we spend billions on defence, but have nothing to show for it.
A modest upgrade to get to 2035 and a new tank from there.
If we aren’t pushing past a frankly hopeless 150, then off the shelf and dont piss more money away on a neche fleet.
if we actually rebuild our MBT fleet with 350 ish tanks, then a new collaborative design.
By 2035 we may have non-maned land units and have ditched the traditional tank…
2000 (or 10,000) would be an investment. Can’t see an for 100 being of any interest to industry for a sensible price tag. Might as well go the whole hog.
Mark, When I joined, we had 900 Chieftain tanks and that was at the height of the Cold War. Reduction to 386 CR2s seemed a savage cut at the time but the end of the Cold War was the justification.
Now, with FS and its two armoured regments we could not crew more than 116 tanks. Point is that the army needs to have a huge increase in manpower to permit a larger tank fleet.
It’s not as if there’s a huge conflict going on the European continent where thousands of armoured vehicles have been decimated.
Are loads and loads of tanks what we need for army?
I genuinely ask as it isn’t my area.
I don’t buy the tanks are obsolete because of drones ATW argument either.
I can see that in manoeuvre warfare they have their uses. But how broad are those uses and is there a better way of delivering the effectors?
From my background I’d be going heavy on AAW both missiles and guns. Do the new wheeled vehicles have AAW capabilities with their 30/40mm? If not that needs a more than urgent rethink as radar and EO guided rounds will deal with most drones.
Off shelf is way to go…..KF51 or K2,£1.5 bn buy us a few!!
England need carry all challenger 2 to Challenger 3 version, obviously 148 MBT is a little number in eventual new war. 148 MBT is a bad joke.
ENGLAND?
Hope to see at least 200
The Russians must be worried huh.
That’s about all they can afford.
This minimal investment shows that serious doubts exists regarding MBT usefullness on the battlefield. They are usefull, as add on firepower, to stop incursions or ennemy advances but they are in a rough spot to break the line. As long as nobody has a solution to break the front, investments will be hesitant. I think all headquarters are thinking deeply on that matter at the moment. Most MBT actions, Russian or Ukrainians seems to be limited to stop incursions or to act as assault guns. The tracks seem to be too vulnérables to rely on them to break any line of contact. The gun has a limited range… Reflexions on MGCS seems unfinished yet. The Tsahal engagmement or the conflict in Sudan, Ethiopia, Libya or Yemen do not convey a definite answer of what is needed.
I guess a lighter tank, able to wistand mid caliber ammunition with armor, with active protection and a 30mm gun to attack drones and strong electromagnetic decoy could do the due. But all of this is so complexe to integrate in one single machine, that I don’t know how to make it successfull. Besides, what would take care of all landmines in the attack phase… And if a breakthrough is achieved, is the heavy tank best suited to exploit it given it’s fuel consumption?
Theire are no answer on these questions with challenger 3. (Nor with Leclerc or Leo3 by the way).
The K2 Builds would be a good option however very expensive 8.5 Million a piece As too the Leopard 2 terrible tank they are not performing in Ukraine and getting killed very quickly Daily Telegraph, the Leopards have disappointed their Ukrainian army crews, as they are said to be over-complex to operate and vulnerable to aerial attack by Russian drones.
Well it is obvious that 148 is not enough, but there are not enough spare hulls to go beyond 200. Even 180-190 would be better than 148. Why are my posts awaiting moderation, when dollar scam posts get through unchecked?
8 tanks?
The Russkies must be crapping themselves!
Luke, nothing wrong with the phrase ‘build’. It is not solely tied to building a new equipment from scratch. Many will refer to the production line as a build line. Quite probably donor tanks will have old turrets removed and also everything stripped off and out of the Hull. You then modify the Hull if required and build it back up into a tank again. This is akin to remanufacture.
George. Why are all my comments under moderation which often takes ages. I am not a troll and have paid my subs!
Never mind extra units.
Great, we have potentially a good MBT turret that will serve for another 20 (at best)years.
It’s taken 40 years to install NATO 120 smooth bore and now our Franco Teutonic friends are spouting 130/140mm!
Meanwhile we have a hull full of machinery that’s already obsolete never mind its future effectiveness (50 year old engine design and 40 year old G/Box design.
FOR HEAVENS SAKE WE MUST MOBE ON!
Asking to join the KNDS next MBT project is surely a no brainer???
500 would be good!
500! Where are the CSS to enable such a force, never mind actual RAC Regiments?
I’d bite the hand off for a modest increase to 200 considering their price.
Jordan and Oman both have old Challengers 1s and 2s respectively that they’re not using and have been stored in the desert. Sometimes I think we should snap them up.
Not happening 😳
I am reminded of that line from Oliver Twist “Please Sir I want some more “..
Buy back the challenger 1 and chieftains from jordan.
Fit chally2 turrets to chally 1 chassis.
Fit chally1 turrets to chieftain and keep both in reserve.
Convert all chally2 to chally3.
Again not happening 😳.
That’s the trouble nothing is ever happening. We must think ahead positively and never shut down our production lines of a few key items till the new is ready.
With a whopping 4 of these tanks – which nobody else in the world wanted to buy – we’re not so much a bastion of democracy, nor even a small speed bump, we’re more like an empty pack of crisps lying on the road. Something no-one would even bother adjusting their course to avoid, they’d just run it straight over
Still, we’ll have a few boats by 2035, so that’s all right then.
The whole defence strategy was that we would be unlikely to have to fight a land war or would only need a small contingent and that our build would be balanced to reflect the fact we live on a island and unlikely to fight a ground war in Mainland Europe hence projecting global power with aircraft carriers/5th Gen aircraft, etc working with NATO with various “force multipliers” being the focus. Since the situation has chanced vastly the SDR needs updating to reflect the new investment. We could well be on a full war time in the next two years given Putin has no intention of backing down. We need more of everything – now!