The Challenger 3 programme has reached an important milestone. The contract has now been signed for Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) to deliver a new modular armour system on the Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank.  

With initial integration trials conducted in 2023, RBSL will now test, manufacture and integrate the new armour onto the Challenger 3 tanks.  

“The enhanced survivability will provide enhanced protection for our soldiers against the most dangerous threats Challenger 3 will face. The investment in this critical capability will deliver for the British Army now and into the future. Challenger 3 will be a key component of the Army’s Future Armoured Brigade Combat Teams and the UK’s contribution to NATO deterrence. The investment in this critical capability will ensure that Challenger 3 is a key component of the Army’s future Armoured Brigade Combat Teams and the UK’s contribution to NATO deterrence now and into the future.”

This contract is a key part of the Land Industry Strategy. It is generating British intellectual property, maintaining the national supply chain and securing skills in the UK. It will support up to 58 jobs in Newcastle and Telford during the initial manufacturing and beyond if export orders are secured.

Colonel Will Waugh, Senior Responsible Owner for the Army’s Armour (MBT) Programme:

“This contract signature is great news and another step forward in the delivery of the Army’s next MBT capability. The conflict in Ukraine has provided a timely reminder of the threat posed by Russia’s MBTs and other weapon systems. This armour is a world-class sovereign capability that will provide a step change in protecting our soldiers and the survivability of Challenger 3.”

“The Challenger 3 programme will not only deliver a Main Battle Tank, it is also regenerating critical industrial capability in the UK, benefitting from the best of British engineering and manufacturing whilst sustaining valuable skills across the country. The enhanced armour contract will deliver a world-class industrial capability for the manufacture of armour solutions.”

Colin McClean, RBSL Managing Director said:

“The industrial investment that will be realised as part of this contract will see Telford at the forefront of Armour Development and Manufacture. The investment in this critical capability will deliver for the British Army now and into the future. Driving the delivery of the Land Industry Strategy generating British IP, British Supply Chain and British Skills.” 

Director Land Equipment, Maj Gen Darren Crook CBE said:

“The contract award for next-generation modular armour on the Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank is yet another significant step forward for the programme. Not only does it secure a battle-winning armour solution for the British Army, but it is also great news for British industry. It illustrates our collective commitment to developing and securing skills in the defence sector for future generations, showing the Land Industrial Strategy in action.” 

George Allison
George Allison
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
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

83 COMMENTS

  1. Erm… George?

    These are upgrades to existing units I believe?
    IF the contract is JUST signed for new armour,

    WHEN are we likely to see them in service?

      • “RBSL to deliver a new modular armour system…” Sorry, some additional explanation necessary for the benefit of some non-Army personnel. Modular upgrade of existing Dorchester armour, or addition of explosive, reactive armour? Partial or full coverage of hull and/or turret? Most importantly, tested for effectiveness under realistic battlefield conditions? 🤔

          • Farnham is the internal armour of the tank which replaces Chobham. Epsom is the additional armour for TES that replaces Dorchester.
            Naming likely works differently in the US for Abrams.

        • Er, lots of modular sandbags, “delivered on time and within budget ensuring our C3s are the best protected MBT in the world, with an added benefit of effective flood defences”……..moneys tight, sandbags are cheap and 95%of the population have no clue or interest anyway 👍

        • Basically the new Epsom and Farnham Armour packages have been developed by the clever boffins at DSTL,but they can’t produce it in quantity so they pass the specs of it onto RBSL who then initiate volume production of it,deliver it and integrate it onto the CR2 Hulls and brand new Turret ,then you end up with a CR3 
          As to the coverage of it and how it is applied to the Hull and Turret we will have to wait until the Prototypes are revealed which could be as soon as next week.👍

      • Take a quick look over on Janes to see their new counter-unmanned aerial system (C-UAS) known as Saniya 😂😂😂

      • Denys featured a rebuttal of that misinformation this morning.

        Whilst a 120mm gun should make short work of an IFV the skill and speed of the AFU crew seemed to out-manoeuvre the MBT and get many 25mm shots on the sensors so that it could not acquire the target and fire with accuracy.

        Crew abandoned and vehicle FPV’d didn’t look like victory for RF to me.

        #ArmUkraineASAP 🇺🇦🇺🇲🇬🇧🇩🇪🇵🇱🇳🇱🇮🇹🇪🇸🇫🇷🇪🇸🇨🇿🇳🇴🇩🇰🇫🇮🇸🇪🇱🇻🇪🇪🇱🇹🇨🇦🇯🇵💛💙

        • They need to look on the Telegram channel for Deny’s Davydov, a Ukrainian pilot. It was a very one sided chipping away. It was about as one sided as it would be me getting in the Boxing ring against Tyson Fury.

      • Komrade we successfully interdicted several 25mm rounds form the enemy’s cannon to prevent them from hitting high value targets.

        Well done Komrade. With what did you interdict them?

        Our T90. We left it on the battlefield to soak up even more of the enemy’s ammunition.

        Well done Komrade. Putin thanks you

    • Interestingly one of the reasons that there are so many T90 losses now is because they are becoming the predominantly Russian tank on the battlefield..taking over from the old stocks of T55, T62, T72 that Russia used to cover its tank losses in 2022 early 2023…it seems it now managed to shift its industrial capacity to match demand..apparently estimates are that Russia is now producing up to 90 T90s a month..which does cover their losses…again the west needs to take a very long look at itself….and its military industrial capacity as well as war reserves….

      • As I’ve mentioned many times in the past on here, we could learn a lot from Poland and join up with SK.

        I’m sure we would both gain a great deal from each other. They are already working towards the next generation of MBT with a 130mm main gun as an example.

          • Good evening Airborne,

            It makes perfect sense to me. You only have to look at our record for producing cutting-edge armor for our MBTs for starters which I’m sure they would be very interested in.

            Poland made a very wise decision and will increase their industrial base and workforce because of it.

            Just look at the spinoffs already!

            Kim Cheol-jung, CEO of SK IE Technology (hereinafter, SKIET), visited the company’s Lithium-ion Battery Separator (LiBS) production base in Poland, from April10 to 13 (local time). This is one of his moves to secure the company’s business competitiveness that can respond to the rapidly growing demand of the electric vehicle battery market, following his prior visits to the other bases in Jeungpyeong (Korea) and Changzou (China).

             

            For his first schedule in Poland, CEO Kim visited SKIET’s first separator plan in Poland, which completed construction in 2021. The plant is the first of its kind in Europe, capable of producing about 340 million square meters of separator annually. CEO Kim executed MBWA* (management by wondering around) by inspecting the production lines and communicating with local employees.

             

            He also visited Plants 2, 3 and 4, which are under expansion, to check the construction progress. Plant 2 is scheduled to enter the stage of equipment stabilization and start pilot operation in the second half of this year. It is expected to begin commercial operations as early as the end of this year. The third and fourth plants are currently undergoing site development work and steel framework construction, and targeted to be completed in 2024.

            When Plant 4 starts operating, the company will be able to produce up to 1.54 billion square meters of separators, making it the largest separator production facility in Europe. This is equivalent to the separator production capacity required for approximately 2.05 million electric vehicles.

             

            During his visit to the production base in Poland, CEO Kim Cheol-jung stated, “Even though the plants in Poland aim to target the European market, they could also play a preemptive role in responding to the demand in the North American market.” “We need to have thorough preparation to secure competitive edges, including the establishment of a ‘smart factory’ with automation technology.”

             

            Currently, the production plants of SKIET in Poland are equipped with LiBS packaging and automated product transport equipment and planned to be fully automate from the production process to packaging and transporting stage in the future. The company is also actively pushing ahead the application of AI technology to predict and detect issues in the production process and to identify product defects. Production costs are expected to significantly reduce when such technologies are introduced.

             

            SKIET CEO also met with local government officials to discuss cooperation opportunities. He met with Marcin Bazylak, the mayor of Dąbrowa Górnicza, along with other local officials, and talked about how SKIET can become a leading separator producer in Europe through continued cooperation with local partners. He also joined a meeting with Janusz Michałek, President & Chairman of the Board of the Katowice Special Economic Zone (KSSE), to exchange ideas regarding multiple support plans.

             

            “The core competitiveness of SKIET, which will determine its future growth, lies in technology, cost, global supply chains, and ESG management, and the company must provide integrated value to its customers through these factors,” CEO Kim said. “We will keep making efforts to help the Polish production base preemptively secure core competitive advantages and become the core global hub of SKIET.”

      • This might be the case but Russian tank losses almost often result in the total loss of the three man crew. They are likely to have lost the majority of their best trained crews. A tank is only as good as its crew.

        They have lost lots of T90’s so they are vulnerable.

        Meanwhile more Western tanks are entering the Ukrainian ranks. Western tanks have better crew protection and the crews are more likely to live another day and become more experienced.

        I suspect Russian tank losses will increase not decline despite the new Rusdian tanks.

        • To be honest Rob..I don’t think they have had many experienced crews left for a long time..Russia tanks tend to brew up and kill the crew..the Russian professional army effectively died in 2022…this is an army of called up reservists and conscripts.

      • I agree, though another story is that the Russians had tried to keep T-90 out of the conflict as far as possible to both preserve numbers and to protect its reputation (after all Putin had overtly claimed it to be the best tank in the World despite its inherent obsolescence) in the export market where it was already getting a decaying reputation anyway. For example the dodgy model sent to India many fitted with old pre existing turrets affixed and an innate inability to operate in Indian temperatures requiring air conditioning equipment sent to correct the problem, which itself totally failed to work requiring Western solutions to the problem. (And we complain about Ajax). But as earlier tank models were being taken out to such a degree they had little choice but to increase T-90 numbers.

        As the T-14 Armata is an even bigger disaster the T-90 is after all their main front line battle tank to take on NATO rather than a so called local special operation, and the way things are going the 2000+ of those they started with are already likely reduced somewhat for their intended job, whatever the replacement rate and none of the new ones have the full spec kit of course many of the existing ones had, due to now banned Western tech. Also it is unable, just like its predecessors, to use the latest ammunition developed for the T-14 and seems they don’t have the active protection kit either that was boasted about, simply due to the fact it doesn’t actually work and they don’t want that to be revealed to the World by failing in action. By the way the video I viewed recently of a drone destroying a T-90 shows it was sporting an anti drone EW unit which clearly did not work.

        • Indeed although why anyone would think a Russia MBT was anything other than a death trap for its crews I don’t know…they always have been…

        • I watch lots of these Drone attack Videos… on some Drone footage you can see some type of Antenna arrangement and there seems to be low battery signal as the drones get closer…. I’m guessing the Russians are using some sort of EW systems and the Drones are using an Anti EW one….. I also assume that all these developments are being seriously noted by many powers. I also think It’s pretty incredible to see just how Vulnerable Tanks and AV’s are to these little Drones….. watched a Russian Soldier play hide and seek with a Drone earlier, he ended up trying to “Bat” it away with his rifle…. It didn’t end well.

        • Ukraine does not have the capacity to do more than annoyance hits on Russian soil..the west will not let its systems be used to attack Russia soil…where as Russia can batter anything in Ukraine…its one of Ukraines big problems…Generally to win a modern war you crush the enemies infrastructure and capabilities on their own soil..aka what we did to Germany and Japan, as well as Iraq…when you cannot do that but the enemy can do it to you ( aka what happened to Germany, Japan and iraq) you tend to loss…that is why western supply of arms to Ukraine is so very important and cannot stop..if it does Ukraine losses in the end no matter how valiant.

      • Apparently, the tank crews operating them are very inexperienced due to the lack of skilled tank crews, and as a consequence of that they are being shot to shit.

        No bad thing, happy hunting Ukraine!

        Take a look at their latest protection system on Janes website, speaks volumes 😂😂

        “The Saniya C-UAS fitted on the turret roof cage of a Russian 1st Army Corps T-80BVM tank. (Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation)”

      • only if they actually arm the things with a cannon…does not matter how many rings you run around the MBT, If all you have is a machine gun your not doing anything.

        • I am glad you liked my tongue in cheek remark mate.
          Still no word on the army study (supposedly commenced in March 2023) as to how to increase the lethality of the Boxer infantry carriers whilst acknowledging that the RWS ordered can only take MGs/GMGs.

          • To be honest those Ukrainians had some serious stones doing what they did..we will have to keep our fingers crossed that boxer becomes more than a taxi service….they could paint them black..

    • Rather hoped you wouldn’t mention that! Lead to understand the Bradley went firstly for the lovely optical stuff ‘Onatop’.

    • Don’t want to be subject to the goodwill of Orban the least helpful leader within the EU.

      I suspect that we have a good relationship with Rheinmetall despite their interest in business for Hungary.

    • Always reluctant to go foreign but it’s events of our own creation, so we should have done the same, opened production here so that if we need to hit an active war production rate it is there to do so. What’s the point of Shapps claiming we are in a pre war situation when the Govt seems oblivious of the dangers.

  4. We real need to see the government move to upgrade all the challenger 2 tanks we have left to challenge three..it’s not the time to drop a regiment worth of tanks off the inventory.

  5. Let’s hope that our friends in AFU FPV drone units will get some rotation time to rest and take part in development and testing of the Ch3 armour and countermeasures.

    What they know about brewing T-90s must be used to keep our MBT users safe.

    It’s clear that RF countermeasures are not working on individual vehicles. Though presumably our tankies don’t leave their hatches open for the easy grenade drop.

    Let’s hope that DEW CIWS will be keeping them safe too after today’s announcement of research progress. I’m assuming electricity generation has been considered.

    • Western MBTs..especially challengers don’t brew up in way Russian tanks do..it’s been a know issue with soviet MBT design paradigm…from Syria fighting Israel, to the first and second Iraq Wars Soviet designed MBTs have pretty much all brewed up after penetration…..the ammo stowage..especially with the auto loaders seems to be the issue.

      • Spot on, the whole design of Russkie MBTs involving the auto loader ensures the rounds and charge bags, in the hull, are below the turret in a rotating bustle ready and waiting to fry the crew and send the turret into low orbit! But throughout history Russia has never ever gave a shit about it’s cannon fodder in uniform 👍

        • Interesting and I personally don’t know, but I read that Leopard 1 tanks store their shells in a not dissimilar fashion which is why they are not very popular with Ukranian tank crews. Also heard that Leopard 2s are not as reliable as they would like and as there are few things they can do on the battlefield environment itself the tanks are spending much of their time transiting back and forth to and from the repair shops often even to Poland.

          • I’m no expert in armoured warfare mate, far too dangerous for me! The logistics back and forth to Poland is both good and bad, good insofar that it’s an established loggi chain, bad due to the distance, but maybe we are getting to the stage where tech is advancing to quick and not robust enough for warfare! Tanks are robust, but optics, active defences and sensors not so? We will see mate, cheers.

      • Err – the CR2 lost in Ukraine did brew-up,not quite in the same way Russian Tanks do but it did happen,plenty of pics of it to prove so.

  8. Very good news. I hope they have taken into account lessons learned from Ukraine. For example mines, top attack, drones and artillery etc.

    • One thing that also came out was how thin the armour on top of an Abrams turret is (25mm) and thus how vulnerable potentially they are to drone and top down attacks for which they were never designed to resist. Don’t know how that compares with others.

        • Yes a disgraceful ,short sighted decision that will have far reaching repercussions- both for the Welsh economy & the UK’s strategic capabilities.

          • Yep -Owned by the Chinese – strange that init- they won’t have to sell ‘their’ steel at a loss now will they.

            This is what happens when you totally buy into the free market ethos to the sacrifice at everything else.

            It seems high energy costs are hitting their profitability – maybe we shoud use some/all of that coal/coke thats going to be mined in Cumbria (I think) to help with the manufacture.
            That would reduce our carbon footprint as well as we wouldn’t be importing foreign coke and exporting our coke (how bizzare is that btw).

            Nationalisation of the two steel mills and that coal mine seems like the optimum strategic solution to me…

            oh and ***** the net-zero bullshit – as if those 3 will have ANY impact whatsoever compared to the crap kicked out via India & China processes.

            The only significant impact is on people jobs and the wider economy- oh and our capability when push comes to shove. of course.

            The Chinese and Indian governments must be p1$$1ng themsleves laughing at us tbh.

    • Not economic to build tanks in small numbers , no jigs and many original parts manufacturers no longer in business. Also it would take too long to deliver them, a new tank would have to involve other countries for sensible economies of scale.

      • Looking forward a join project is probably the best idea. Whether that’s with someone in Europe, Asia who knows. Lots of interesting developments happening. War tech is moving quickly with drones, cheaper weapons etc.

      • or we manufacture them at a loss – it seems to me the government can subsidise tcertain manufacturing processes/companies when it suits.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here