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.” 

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

83 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

@JohnWest_JAWS
@JohnWest_JAWS (@guest_783734)
3 months ago

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?

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783743)
3 months ago
Reply to  @JohnWest_JAWS

The planned IOC for Challenger 3 is 2027 followed by FOC in 2030 if all goes to plan.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_783781)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

“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? 🤔

Louis
Louis (@guest_783784)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Epsom and Farnham is replacing Dorchester.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_783866)
3 months ago
Reply to  Louis

Huh, time to consult Mr. Google. 👍

Louis
Louis (@guest_783906)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

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.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_783819)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

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 👍

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_783864)
3 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

😁👍

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_783843)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

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.👍

Last edited 3 months ago by Paul T
FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_783867)
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

Thanks for the explanation. 😊 Should prove to be an interesting presentation of CR-3 prototype. 🤔😳

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_784845)
3 months ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

CR3 has indeed now been revealed 👍

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783736)
3 months ago

Meanwhile, a Ukrainian Bradley IFV destroys a Russian T-90 tank and three Kremlin’s BMP-2 armoured vehicles!

farouk
farouk (@guest_783741)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I have to laugh as the Russia media is reporting that the T90M came out on top in that little bun fight.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783744)
3 months ago
Reply to  farouk

😂They need to take a look at utube!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_783824)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

It’s Rutube in Russia and one T-90 took out 25 F-16s apparent in one 15minute engagement according to its video content.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783862)
3 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Is that all! 😂

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783748)
3 months ago
Reply to  farouk

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

lonpfrb
lonpfrb (@guest_783788)
3 months ago
Reply to  farouk

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

Ex-Marine
Ex-Marine (@guest_783810)
3 months ago
Reply to  lonpfrb

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.

AJP1960
AJP1960 (@guest_783986)
3 months ago
Reply to  farouk

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

Ian Skinner
Ian Skinner (@guest_784944)
3 months ago
Reply to  farouk

The telegraph pole it crashed into was in worse condition, so they are claiming the win.

Mickey
Mickey (@guest_783762)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Two Bradleys. Not at the same time. One after the other in short order.

A one two punch.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_783770)
3 months ago
Reply to  Mickey

those Bradley’s were very swift,

Last edited 3 months ago by Jonathan
Mickey
Mickey (@guest_783797)
3 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Very. One of them must have had a TOW.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_783822)
3 months ago
Reply to  Mickey

No mate, the 25mm Bushmaster has a small amount of Armour Piercing rounds, used in conjunction with normal 25mm to smash optics etc, most tanks which are ambushed are pretty much dead or dying 👍

Mickey
Mickey (@guest_783869)
3 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Yep, watched it again. Good shooting!

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783785)
3 months ago
Reply to  Mickey

👊👊👏

Mickey
Mickey (@guest_783798)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

And an uppercut flurry for the finish.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783799)
3 months ago
Reply to  Mickey

Job done!

Dokis
Dokis (@guest_783828)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

And that’s why companies are not made of 1 lonely tank. Strange tactics, the russians

Jack
Jack (@guest_783907)
3 months ago
Reply to  Mickey

Two little guys tag-teamed the bigger guy and ran him ragged 😂

Mickey
Mickey (@guest_784021)
3 months ago
Reply to  Jack

I assume the T-90 was captured after.

There were three crew that gor out and took off.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_783778)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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….

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783789)
3 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_783823)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Agreed mate, to include numbers and types acquired 👍

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783855)
3 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

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… Read more »

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_783838)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

Panther KF51 has a 130 mm Future Gun System (FGS).

Rob N
Rob N (@guest_783829)
3 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_783860)
3 months ago
Reply to  Rob N

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_783839)
3 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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… Read more »

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_783858)
3 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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…

Frank
Frank (@guest_783889)
3 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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… Read more »

Jack
Jack (@guest_783908)
3 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

Surely we know the supply line by now. Can’t they be destroyed before even getting to Ukraine?

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_783935)
3 months ago
Reply to  Jack

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… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_783820)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

That’s some very interesting footage mate isn’t it!

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_783856)
3 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

They completely ran rings around the MBT..shows that speed is important.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783861)
3 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

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)”

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_783837)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

I hope our Infantry in their Boxers will be able to do that!

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_783857)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_784514)
3 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_784535)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

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..

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783863)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I heard on the grapevine we might be installing Jacobs’s sling. The original on that is!

grizzler
grizzler (@guest_784359)
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

One would hope they would be wearing more than that- although it depends how hot it gets in there I suppose.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore (@guest_784515)
3 months ago
Reply to  grizzler

Good one! Thanks. Very funny.

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_783913)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

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

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins (@guest_783951)
3 months ago
Reply to  Gavin Gordon

A shot in the eye so to speak 😜

Gavin Gordon
Gavin Gordon (@guest_784082)
3 months ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

👌

Ron
Ron (@guest_783772)
3 months ago

Whilst we are looking at upgrading 150 Challengers Hungary is working together with Rheinmetall on the KF51 Panther.

lonpfrb
lonpfrb (@guest_783792)
3 months ago
Reply to  Ron

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.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_783841)
3 months ago
Reply to  Ron

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_783774)
3 months ago

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.

lonpfrb
lonpfrb (@guest_783783)
3 months ago

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.

Jonathan
Jonathan (@guest_783812)
3 months ago
Reply to  lonpfrb

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.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_783827)
3 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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 👍

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_783846)
3 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

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.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_783852)
3 months ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

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.

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_783945)
3 months ago
Reply to  Jonathan

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.

Jacko
Jacko (@guest_784634)
3 months ago
Reply to  Paul T

Every tank can brew up! It’s just that western tanks in most cases survive long enough for the crew to scarper.

Last edited 3 months ago by Jacko
Tom
Tom (@guest_783802)
3 months ago

Oh… bae again! ‘next gen’ modular armour. WTF is that about? 😉😂😅

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_783847)
3 months ago
Reply to  Tom

Aren’t they the minority shareholder in this case.

Mark cherry
Mark cherry (@guest_783811)
3 months ago

Hurry up and build them we never at least 2000

Rob N
Rob N (@guest_783830)
3 months ago

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

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_783848)
3 months ago
Reply to  Rob N

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.

PaulW
PaulW (@guest_783849)
3 months ago

Think it’s time to add some new build ch3’s to the order?

Andrew
Andrew (@guest_783871)
3 months ago
Reply to  PaulW

I don’t think we have that capability anymore…

AlbertStarburst
AlbertStarburst (@guest_783946)
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew

…and just lost raw steel production at “Port Albert” as a BBC reporter once called it.

grizzler
grizzler (@guest_783987)
3 months ago

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

Last edited 3 months ago by grizzler
Simon
Simon (@guest_784106)
3 months ago
Reply to  grizzler

Same thing happing with Scunthorpe steel plant as well

grizzler
grizzler (@guest_784367)
3 months ago
Reply to  Simon

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… Read more »

pete
pete (@guest_783962)
3 months ago
Reply to  PaulW

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.

monkey spanker
monkey spanker (@guest_784096)
3 months ago
Reply to  pete

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.

grizzler
grizzler (@guest_784368)
3 months ago
Reply to  pete

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

Paul T
Paul T (@guest_784813)
3 months ago

Nicholas Drummond has pics up on X of the CR3 Prototype 👀.