The UK’s next-generation main battle tank, Challenger 3, is being positioned by the Ministry of Defence as a significant leap in capability — one that will rival or exceed adversary platforms such as Russia’s T-14 Armata.

In response to a parliamentary question from Conservative MP Mark Francois, Defence Minister Maria Eagle emphasised that the Challenger 3 is not merely an upgraded vehicle but a transformed platform designed to meet future battlefield threats head-on.

“The Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank will deliver a significant improvement in capability over its predecessor, the Challenger 2,” Eagle said, adding that the new tank features “a digitalised turret fitted with the latest 120mm smoothbore gun paired with the most lethal ammunition available.”

The vehicle’s enhancements include advanced sensors and targeting systems, world-class British-designed armour, an active protection system, and upgraded automotive performance. According to Eagle, these improvements are intended to ensure that Challenger 3 remains “world-leading” throughout its lifecycle and continues to match emerging threats.

“We are confident that Challenger 3 will continue to match potential threats throughout its lifecycle,” she added, “but we will continually review the performance of its specification to ensure that it remains world-leading.”

Francois also pressed the Ministry on progress toward replacing the depleted uranium rounds used with Challenger 2. In reply, Eagle confirmed that work is well underway through a joint UK-Germany initiative.

“The qualification of selected Enhanced Kinetic Energy ammunition has already started,” she explained. “This ammunition will deliver a significant enhancement to the lethality provided by the current ammunition of Challenger 2.”

Challenger 3 is central to the British Army’s modernisation plans and is set to become the UK’s primary armoured platform for decades to come. It is scheduled to reach Initial Operating Capability by 2027.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

140 COMMENTS

  1. I willing to bet that it is better than t14 as the t14 uses a lot of off the shelf technology inside it much of it a copy from French designs but obviously 3 t14 v 1 c3 is better with our proposed numbers we have enough tanks for maybe 1 offensive that’s it, I do have a question I hope someone can answer I’m of the understanding that the engine being used in C3 is a modernised variant of C2s engine which I’ve not heard much good about and I wonder why we didn’t go for the German MTU engine that’s a proven reliable engine my only thought is that maybe the engine bay wouldn’t fit it possibly? But I really am only guessing I hope someone has a take on it

    • The Best opportunities To Earn $22,000/Month. We all spend a lot of time on social media every day – Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter, and the list goes on. If you’re used to getting a lot of likes or comments, or if you’re great at motivating others through your posts, you might want to consider turning this into a profession. It appears unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it…

      HERE →→→→ 𝐖­𝐖­𝐖­.­𝐇­𝐈­𝐆­𝐇­𝐏­𝐑­𝐎­𝐅­𝐈­𝐓­𝟏­.­𝐂­𝐎­𝐌

    • Agree, the T14 doesn’t really exist, it’s little more than a sales mock up. Even with what they claimed the T14 could do and would have the C3 easily out classes it.

      • That’s not the right leasons from Ukraine. Leasons are that quantity is a quality by itself. People thought that western tanks would do far better than Russian tanks. They did not. Apart from a better survival rate, the T90 at 4M€ is is a better choice than Léopard at 20M€. Especially since you would have 5 T90 for the price of 1 Léopard.
        Same lesson applies to the Caesar at 4M€ vs PZH 2000 at 20M€ or Archer at 8M€. Simpler design, less expensive to opérate gets 60% availability vs 15% and 28% respectively. So every countries are buying Caesar, 600 solds in 2 years.
        Simpler and cheaper is better, just better, when the shooting starts.
        The same trend start to appear in Russian Airforce, where they prefer Mig 35 over Su 35 or Su 57. It is just about time to make an Itar free Grippen or successor. Mass matters.
        Anything not in this line is a waste of money and a waste of time.
        I hope some people in UK reach the same conclusion quick. Military design and planning must come back to reality, now that it is in full display for every one.
        let’s ask a simple question: do you prefer to charge being 1 against 5 or 5 against 1? Tactics, brain matters.

        • The reality irritating thing is that challenger 3 is being purchased at 5 million a pop..so the MOD should be buying every single one it possibly can..getting all the old out of service hulls and converting the lot..it should also be doing the same with warrior at 2 million a pop..

          What it really should not be doing is buying boxer APCs at 6-8 million a pop when it could get a huge number of perfectly good APCs for 1 million a pop.

          In this the British army needs to take a lesson from the French army who because they buy at a price point are willing to compromise now have either ordered or have delivered 4000-5000 new armoured fighting vehicles…vs the Uks order of 500 ajex, 600 boxer and 140 challenger 3.

          • When a véhicule is cheap, it will not have the best armor or armement. The french VBCI is about 2M€ a pièce, when the Linx is 20M€. I don’t discuss that frontal armor of the Linx is better. But France would not have been able to but 600 Lynx. When you have a cheap platform, it is alway possible to buy additional kit, like cope cage, steel plating, a new turret, an active protection system, a radar, etc. Without the plateforme, or if the plateforme is heavy, it is always complicated. Mass matters…
            And I agrée with you, modernising is not a bad idea. Russians do it, nothing wrong about that. Does not mean I like Russians, but if they are learning from us, why wouldn’t we take avantage of them.

        • I am making a good s­al­ary from home $4580-$5240/week , which is amazing und­er a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now its my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,

          Here is I started_______ 𝐖­­­𝐖­­­𝐖.𝐖­­𝐎­­𝐑­­­­𝐊𝐒­­­­𝐓­­­­𝐀­­­­𝐑­­­­𝟏.­­­­𝐂­­­­𝐎­­𝐌

        • Sounds like you are trying to convince yourself and are in denial. Taking your argument to its logical conclusion Boris, if your assertion was correct we would still be lobbing canonballs because they were simpler and cheaper to produce. Why are you talking about the T90 it is a cold war relic. Your government stole western design and technology – like they do with aircraft, ships, and submarines – for the Armada and are terrified to bring it to the battlefield, because like the konkordski, Kursk, Moska, stealing some tech and trying to produce Russian copies is a recipe for disaster. If it is so advanced why are they not using it in in scale in Ukraine? I’ll tell you. The Kremlin are terrified of humiliation after six Armada’s got wiped out by hand-held missiles in the first engagement,resulting in the others being returned to Russian soil under the pretext that they were being held in reserve to defend against any Ukrainian invasion?

      • T-14 doesn’t exist? Of course it does and it had seen action in Ukraine. Because it can fire from standoff distance Ukrainians never saw it. Just because it hasn’t gone into series doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. This tank is cheaper than anything the west can produce and there os no evidence that tje Challenger 3 os better. You got proof? Taking the British MOD at their word? The biggest liars after Ukranians.

    • You can read the engine specs on Perkins website,it is the CV9A upgraded from the CV6A,it is capable of 1500 bop but is being kept at 1200bhp because due to the superior suspension of CH2/3 it is deemed good enough for the job!

      • Not sure if this is correct. The CV9A has new thermal management and a new computer controlled fuel injection system. The C3 has an upgraded transmission and a third generation hydrogas suspension. It should be obvious that the power train improvements are there to deliver more power to the tracks, not the same power as C2. Thus it is highly likely that C3 will operate with 15000bhp not 12000bhp. Out of interest an MTU power pack was fitted to the desert C1E which also had French optics. So I suspect you could fit an MTU to C3. The reason they have not done so is because they already have a 15000bhp engine.

          • I know they trialed the new fuel injection and were getting 1500. The as far as I can see the new injection system is fitted to the 9A, so I guess it can do 1500. This makes sense ad C3 is a ton heavier then C2 and would need the extra power. As mentioned above they would not have upgraded the power train at great expense only to deliver the same 1200 as tge C2. I am sure the C3 will have a 1500 output.

      • Jacko, other reasons to restrict power to 1200 bhp is that improved reliability and fuel consumption results.

    • We already saw what Challengers can do on Ukraine. Absolitely nothing. Most were destroyed by T-90s, the older T-72, as well as even older T-64B3.Challengers proved to be too heavy, slow and inadequately armored. The evidence is on the battlefield. The new Challenger 3 has yet to prove itself. I don’t see any evidence that it’s better than T-14. British MOD is a bunch of certifiable liars and Russophobes. Just about anything they say is a twisted lie. Before they claimed that Challenger 2 was going to be much better than the Russian T-90. But there’s no evidence of that. Look where the battle lines are today compared with last year. Your “game changing” Challengers, Leopards and Abrams made zero difference in the war. Same goes for HIMARS, ATACAMS, Javelins and F-16s. Ukraine is losing the war fast.

      • Hello, i believe you understand that russia has superior air control than ukraine including troops in numbers training ammunition and general equipment. Ukraine has relied on contributors. The fact that ukraine has kept russia at the current front demonstrates the quality of this battle machines. Its obvious that ukraine have to lose a good numbers of sophiscate equipment base on many factors not necessarily the quality. Ukraine and west equipments are doing greater than russian in 3 yrs of war with russia.

        • Did you put any thought into this comment or just rattle off some nonsense from Western MSM? The Russians have continually adapted their equipment, just as Ukraine as. But Western equipment has proven to be less than as good as the blurb. The proof is the silence in the media about how well Western equipment doing. Patriot, rubbish. F16s quiet. Tanks, littering the battlefield. Javelin, countered and many in Russian armouries (Russia has more javelins than the British army)… Do some research, it’s not hard

      • As far as I can see only one C2 was lost in Ukraine and that was not to a tank. In fact tge lack of tank action is because Russian tanks do nor wish to take on Western designs. The Ukrainian forces praise C2 fore its long range accuracy and armour protection. No Ukrainians have been killed in C2 unlike Russian designs that are rebound for exploding. The T14 is not really an operational tank as there are only about 12 of them. The Russians have never put it into full production and have said they will not as they are focussing on existing models. So the T14 is basically a prototype. Judging from the tone of your remarks I suspect you are just a Russian disinformation troll and so rational debate will be ineffective with you. If you are looking for evidence count the number of T90/80s that have been lost with their crews.

      • It is not that Western tanks are failing, but their way of fighting is wrong. Ofcourse the chally’s would lose if they are used inappropriately without the proper initial attacks first (like artillery bombing). Face to face, western tanks have far better survivability (and have a better gun, aka Leopard 2a7v) But the way ukrainians use it results in a lot of losses because of a.) pre-battle attacks b.) lack of infantry support c.) only 1-2 challengers fighting. And the fact that you declared that Ukraine is losing is silly. If they are losing, why havent Russia done more? Why have they kept fighting in the same regions for so damn long?

    • Ridiculous we’ve heard all the nonsense before “World beating”, “Worlds Leading”, “best in the World”. Understand that ordinary people do not know what’s gone into to, or going into Russia’s new tanks. People foolishly believe that due to sanctions that Russia and its allies can’t design and build cutting edge weapons. That’s a very misguided and dangerous assumption.

    • The upto date version of the CV12 engine using common rail injection produces 1500bhp

      It is available off the shelf and is pretty much just a straight swap

      The MTU offers no advantages

  2. Will be able to operate in conditions like those we see in Ukraine ? Apparently, the C2 is too heavy and it’s tracks struggle to get traction.

    • Apparently that’s largely a myth. Photos of challenger 2 stuck in the mud were a training exercise. Ukraine does not use the extra armour theatre entry kits that we do so the tank is significantly lighter than its design spec. Mud is a problem in Ukraine for all tanks.

      No dispute that challenger 2 is a bit under powered (300bhp less) compared to Lepoard 2 and M1 but it’s fairly manageable.

      One thing that is clear is the 120mm rifled gun with HESH rounds is incredibly useful despite all the detractors saying it’s useless.

      The armour and ergonomics of the tank are worked beating.

      Russian propaganda has gone out of its way to try and push C2 myths.

      • “One thing that is clear is the 120mm rifled gun with HESH rounds is incredibly useful despite all the detractors saying it’s useless.”

        Maybe useful against a pillbox or a wall. 120mm rifled was well designed to combat WP tanks, it did not evolved from that.
        120mm smoothbore have many more projectile varieties to choose and many with computerized fuses that can explode inside buildings, anti helo etc..

        • Alex, HESH was designed in the first place in WW2 specifically to defeat concrete fortifications. It can also create lethal behind-armour-effects fired at a 150mm RHA plate inclined at 60 degrees – not too shabby as a secondary munition for our tanks.

          • Agreed, but it has a relatively poor fragmentary effect on targets, especially those in the open. The smoothbore does give the Chally 3 the ability to fire multipurpose HE shells, which offer superior performance against targets in the open.

            There is absolutely no denying HESH’s capability against hardened targets like bunkers. It could have a programmable fuze in the base along with a proximity sensor. But without a solid metal case that can fragment when detonated. It has to rely on its concussive wave to damage objects in the open. Which has a lesser and smaller diameter lethality radius.

            A Belgium manufacturer made a HESH shell that could be fired by a smoothbore gun in the past. I think it’s the same one who currently make the HESH for Chally2. Which included tail fins to make it spin. I’m sure if there was a definite need for a HESH there are options.

          • Agreed. No matter what, getting hit by a 120mm big boom shell is definetly gonna cause a few trouble for the crew

      • Yes, by all reports it is superb at taking out Russian tanks or anything within range!

        As CH3 will be even better.

        This is an investment I’m 100% behind and I do hope that we find some pennies in the bottom of the jar to upgrade every single other serviceable hull to create a war reserve in that nice climate controlled shed at Ashchurch.

        • C2 is better than anything else at cutting through old Soviet tanks and that’s all Russia has now. The 120mm is more than capable of dealing with anything up to a T90M and it’s probably able to deal with a T14 if it ever exists because it’s likely that the Russians where lying about its advanced composite armour.

          • All probably true.

            I wouldn’t be surprised if the T14 turned out to be a fibreglass mockup….

            I have to say I’m stunned at how bad the Russian systems are.

        • A few years ago, myself included thought the L30A1 rifled gun and CHARM combination, would struggle to penetrate the front of a T90M. On paper the new composite turret and the use of the latest ERA on paper at least was expected to defeat a Chally2’s CHARM round. However, in reality it has shown to be more than capable. With numerous videos of a jubilant Ukrainian Chally crew extolling the virtues of the tank against all Russian tanks. Which also includes images of destroyed T90s etc.

          But the caveat is that we’ve yet to see a Chally in a tank on tank combat, as Leo 2 and Abrams, only the final result. So there may be a case that to guarantee success against a T90M it has to be fairly close (by tank standards).

          • The Western tanks are avoided by Russian tanks as they do not wish to face tanks designed specifically to kill them. I have no doubt that C2 is more than capable of killing T90s. Also we know that C2 is capable of stopping 125mm Russian rounds.

      • Jim, Many Americans also peddle CR2 myths, some even claiming it is the worst tank in the world! All ridiculous.

    • Jack, Latest M1A2 weighs about the same as CR2. Of course Ukrainians consider CR2 is very heavy…in comparison to the T-series tanks they are used to. Inexperienced UKR CR2 drivers do periodically bog in, especially in the rainy season, like any other rookie drivers. I had not heard the story about track grip – they could always remove the track pads.

    • At the very least all of the 148 C3 should get APS, buying just 60 is scandalous.
      If we are to believe defence manufacturing is being ramped up, building new hulls should not be beyond our capability. If we cant afford more then 148 then a similar number of Ajax -Brimstone overwatch vehicles should be paired with the C3s .
      A longer range ATGM out to about 8km would also make up for lower numbers.

      • Planning and purchasing still seems to be done around small deployments, realistically if this kind of equipment is actually needed, it’ll be the kind of situation that they need it all and quickly, like sending 3 Div to Europe. With such small numbers having more APS seems logical to protect what little equipment you have. It’s still very much about money rather than the capability that will be needed, the Government still isn’t serious and not that much is changing, most of the programs are still based on pre-Ukraine assumptions and some of those are slowly progressing or others simply are not being delivered.

      • Restarting production would probably be unaffordable, the costs we would get quoted no doubt would be ridiculous per unit. But agree we should be upgrading every single unit that is capable of being upgraded. Doing the bare minimum is well, just doing the bare minimum as usual.

      • For Putin to notice we need to have at least a 50% increase across the board in capacity. As you say new hulls can be built if required. Even if not required making a number to show we still have the capacity to do so would be sensible.

  4. It’s always funny trying to project anything western to be better than Russia’s best. For now this claim is as empty as it sounds. Russian weaponry in Ukraine have provided the whole world with an insight previously clouded by western propaganda bombardment through media outlets they control. Russia is now the proved military superpower in the world and this cannot be achieved by fighting with shovels as the west claimed. It’s about superior weaponry and tactics.

    • What a load of nonsense. The superior weaponry you’re espousing is only good for demonstrating the ‘turret toss’ as yet another crew is immolated by the consequences of poor design.
      The ‘proved military superpower’ fought to a standstill by a much smaller force.
      F***king buffoon

    • Are you being sarcastic?

      Russia has proved to the world that its tech is hopeless against second string NATO weapons.

      Russia hasn’t had a sniff at the air or naval degradation they would suffer.

      Bear in mind air is the domain that NATO heavily invest in and accurate smart bombs dropped from super high altitude would devastate Russian logistics, factories and dumps in hours. The amount and precision of HE that would rain down on Russia would be unbelievable to them.

      • Agree the ukraine russia war is a war without air superiority . Especially from Russia. This has allowed drones fpvs to fill up the power vacuum. But if one had air superiority then it would be a bigger game changer to the battlefield than drones have been

        • #Rst2001
          Air superiority makes no difference, I think. What will a fast jet do with an average sized drone? The operational cost difference is so huge between the two platform, that drones would still be an absolute menace on the battlefield. Even helicopters wouldn’t help. You just can’t afford to constantly hover over every sq mile of frontline 24/7 to scan for 2 men drone teams in the bushes. So someone will sneak forward with a £150 drone, and start dropping handgranades into trenches and hatches or directing artillery fire.

          • Take out bigger things like railway trains and bridges that drones can’t really touch.

          • I believe your are right. Air superiority can be an edge, but it is all but certain in that we could enjoy it over Russia as it was archived over Irak.
            In terms of firepower, 4 T90 at 3 to 4 M€ will do better than 2 T14 at 10M€ or 1 Léo 2 at 20M€.
            Besides, in mobility, Challenger, Léo 2 and Abrahams have performed pourly in mud, river crossing and bridge crossing. Thing is Ukraine prefer Léo 1, as they at lighter, or T72.
            Time to build a 40t or max 50t tank and forget the 65 / 70t tanks. They are not efficient. Same thing for technologie. Time to look for good enough technologies. More isn’t always better. Russia is able to sustain tank losses. Ukraine, not so much, because we don’t have mid size mass produced designs available. So…

          • For starters the Russian Airforce wouldn’t be able to lob glide bombs at NATO (glide bombs where the #1 form of fire support against ukr positions in 2024 for the record, not drones).

            Bridges, SAM sites (via anti radiation missiles), ammo depots that are out of HIMARS range, retreating forces (see the Iraqi road of death in kuwait), and, rather importantly: drone crews (while Fibre optic crews might be safer, I wouldn’t want to be emitting if NATO airpower was hunting me).

            Long list of target sets that fast air, or even slow air, can engage, that drones can’t.

            Also Ukraine struggles to sustain tank losses because of donations bring limited. If you combine NATO, especially Germany and the US production capability on tanks Russia does not have an advantage.

          • To brutally frank and according to Oryx, Ukraine has lost (permanently) 4 Chally2s. With one of the four deliberately destroyed by the Ukrainians, after it lost a track to a mine. Which was way behind the Russians lines during the Kursk offensive. The rest have been taken out by ATGM and drones.

            There’s two immediate lessons to be learned from these destroyed Challys. The first is that perhaps three of them may have survived the attack from drones/ATGM, if they were protected by APS.

            The second is the importance of the heavy recovery vehicle such as the Challenger armoured repair and recovery vehicle CRARRV. However, these also need APS to protect them from ATGMs and drones. Which then allows them to operate in and around the front line, to recover these precious vehicles.

            Currently there seems to be no drive to put in place lessons learned from Ukraine’s first hand experience. I’m sure there are plenty of reports flying about along with operational analysis of the land conflict. But when comes to enacting these lessons, the MoD just kick the can down the street. I can’t tell if it’s ineptitude from junior offices to push for these changes. Or it’s a direct lack of cash to get things started?

    • Well they have pioneered the use of ATV’s, dirtbikes and buggy’s as assault vehicles…. I”ll give you that.
      Those superior weaponry and tactics have led to gains of… checks notes.. 1,600 square miles (roughly the size of Cape Verde) in a year at the cost of an estimated 400,000 casualties.

    • Yes we have leant from many sources how good the Russian kit is – the huge lists of lost Russian equipment is a testimony to Russia’s total superiority. It it was all so good why is Russia not in Kiev?

      • Russian never said it wanted Kiev. If it did, Kiev wouldn’t exist now. Too many wanna be toy soldier here…. Go watch sources who actually know what they are talking about when it comes to russian invasion tactics and plans.

        • Riiiight.. that’s why the war opened with the VDV attempting to seize Kyiv (I assume that’s what you meant since Kiev is not a place) Airport, and a huge thunder run being launched out of Belarus that was only stopped just outside Kyiv right?

          • That was to make them submit and end the war quickly. Ukraine would of kept all of its territory if they would of agreed but Donbass would of been autonomous. But the Brits and Yanks told Ukraine to keep fighting. Promised them support and victory. So the Russians regrouped to liberate Donbass and the other provinces who voted to join the federation the old fashion way. Which they are achieving despite fighting a NATO trained, NATO funded and NATO supplied military force.

            Nice try though!

          • “That was to make them submit and end the war quickly.”
            Oh so Russia did want to take Kyiv. Thanks for that admission.

            As for the rest, largely bullshit. Russia didn’t regroup to liberate the donbass, (hell it still doesn’t control a single oblast in it’s entirety besides Crimea), it tried to push through Izyum, until the Ukranians destroyed the 4th Guards Tank Division. (And by voted, you mean “had a rigged election where you filled in your ballot with a Russian pointing a rifle at you”).

            Also NATO trained and supplied? There is help from NATO but the Ukranian army is a Soviet Army, with Soviet equipment and largely soviet training, that has had some NATO equipment delivered in key roles, and some NATO training patched over it.

            Nice try though, fuck off back to Russia.

    • Are you high? Or just a troll?? Russian weapons are being shot out of the sky daily by our OLDER systems 🤣🤣 what have they proven? That they can’t take a vastly smaller country IN THREE YEARS?!?! and it’s their NEIGHBOUR 🤣🤣🤣

    • Ummm you mean it’s been driven to a stalemate by a nation ten times smaller in every way… yep super power stuff..

      • Yeah but supportive of course as I am we have given our friends just enough to hold the line and not to win. Take UK PLC for example , we gifted a Squadron of CH2 but crucially also.provided the training for the crews . That Sqn o ( 14 tanks ?) went to one of their very best units, 82 Bde and despite a few losses ( 2 x CH2) are still very much intact and in action as we speak despite being on pretty much continuous high intensity combat for over two years. That is a remarkable testimony to both Challenger 2 and their Ukrainian crews. My point being however imagine the impact it would have made if we had provided a Regt, 56 tanks rather than 14 and that this had been replicated by our partner nations and friends. Before I get shot down badly yes I know the reason , Challenger 3 is not a new tank but a rebuilt Chally 2 and we need every one of our remaining Chally 2 to turn into Chally 3 . The sane applies to the French . I am not aware of any LeClerc MBT being donated to Ukraine , reason being the 200 upgraded LeClerc are not new tanks but rebuilds of the old. Interestingly I believe the Aussie’s have donated all 57 of their M1A2 to Ukraine, ie a full Regt and it will be very interesting what impact they will have once they arrive and if properly employed. Slava Ukraine. 🇺🇦👍🇬🇧

    • Can I have what you’re drinking?

      NATO combined tactics would smash RusMil; Ukraine does not have that capability and does what it can.

      Russian command and control is shown to he abysmal; indeed, Ukrainian forces fighting from 2014 would have delivered a different, positive, outcome to today.

    • T14 will probably never see the light of day, the design looked promising but it’s too sophisticated and expensive for the Russian industry under embargo and… also it simply never worked, we all remember the parade fiasco, they’ve tried in add India to the project but failed

    • ‘On paper’ my imaginary tank is even better!

      What the Russians claim and what actually exists, or has been made to work appear to be very different things…..

    • … there’s a reason commanders have always been in turrets, and it’s not “because design constraints.”

    • Alex, you say the T14 Armata is superior because one guy, the driver, has been moved from hull to turret. That’s it?

    • On paper perhaps. But I don’t it will be very good in a real conflict. I base this assumption on the crew’s need to rely on digital optics to give them a picture of what is happening around them. Additionally, as the crew are in a fighting compartment in the hull, there is no physical optical link from the turret. The turret is remotely operated, so if the digital link is broken. The tank is effectively mission killed. A sniper with an anti-material rifle, would stand a good chance at mission killing a T14 by taking out its optics. Plus being showered with fragments/shrapnel for artillery/rocketry, how resilient are the optics? At least with a manned turret, they have the option of physical episcope backups as well looking directly down the insides of the barrel to sight a target!

      At the Defence Expo held in Abu Dhabi in Feb this year. A Russian defence manufacturer was asked why there were no T14s being used against Ukraine and why they aren’t being produced. Their answer was that the T14 was too expensive and explained that the Russian MoD stated that for 1 T14 you can purchase 2.5 T90Ms. Which for the conflict with Ukraine means the Army would have less tanks.

  7. This is classic. Usual spin. Yes I’m sure CR3 is much better but we will only have 148, of which I’m sure, 10,20,30 of them will be Non Taskworthy when the ballon goes up. Russia on the other hand, would bring to the party and couple of hundred, if not a couple of thousand. Token effort, same as everything else in Defence. Unfortunately we need a proper war to sort this country out.

  8. I’ve always wondered why the Challenger tanks don’t have an autoloader like the T-14 does. It reduces the crew from four to three. To the British army with it’s well documented recruitment issues this would allow reallocation of the loaders into other roles in the army and reduce manpower pressures significantly

  9. The C3 will never be able to beat the T14, as they exist in two different realm. C3 is in the real world, T14 is in the fantasy land. We should stop talking about the platform. It doesn’t exist. A few prototype and pre production units will not change anything. If I see them moving down Ukranian assets, I would say keep an eye on it.
    Will there ever be enough C3s overall? I don’t think so. But that is a different argument.

  10. Unless you have hundreds of them and the ability to quickly scale up production, there kinda pointless.

    Owning a couple of tanks just allows you to exist in a 3rd world conflict. Not a near peer.

  11. JOIN US Making cash is very easy an simple now days. 2025 is the year of making money online . I am here to tell you guys that its so easy to make more than $15k every month by working online. I have joined this job 3 months ago and on my first day of working without having any experience of online jobs I made $524. This is just amazing. Join this now by…

    Follow instructions here………….. 𝐖­𝐖­𝐖­.­𝐇­𝐈­𝐆­𝐇­𝐏­𝐑­𝐎­𝐅­𝐈­𝐓­𝟏­.­𝐂­𝐎­𝐌

  16. Ok so C3 is a world beater. So why the heck are we only getting 148 and of those only 67 at a time fitted with Trophy. That’s not world beating that’s penny pinching.
    Wouldn’t cost a huge sum to just get them all upgraded and purchase enough Trophy sets and submunitions.

    • Mr Bell, we are only getting 148 CR3s because we will only be able to crew 116 of them. Granted that the Attrition Reserve could be somewhat larger. All should have Trophy APS, I agree.

      • I would say we only choose to crew 116 of them. As we speak the kings royal hussars is still equipped with challenger 2s and as of this moment it’s still reported that its structure is

        C Squadron (11th Hussars) – Sabre Squadron containing 14 x Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks.
        A Squadron (20th Hussars) – Sabre Squadron containing 14 x Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks.
        B Squadron (14th Hussars) – Sabre Squadron containing 14 x Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks.
        D Squadron (10th Hussars) – Sabre Squadron containing 14 x Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks.

        So as we speak the army can still crew three type 56 regiments…this will change soon but as yet it’s still a reversible decision.

        • Jonathan, I used the future tense as the army is moving inexorably towards its 72,000 FS ORBAT which has only two armoured regiments. If somehow that decision to lose a further 10,000 posts were reversed, then a fuller ORBAT could be created, including retention of the third regiment. But, in my 69-year lifetime I have never experienced a growth of army regular manpower.

        • Jonathan agree absolutely , was at Bovington the other day and was chatting to a KRH subby ( 2/Lt) at lunch. Was pleasantly surprised to hear the KRH have still got their tanks. At the moment they are still scheduled to ‘transition’ to Ajax ( which does not excite them at all despite the spin they are being fed but at the moment they still have their Chally 2. The numbers are not an issue ,bargain this is spin. Whilst clearly I would like more an army of 72,000 regular soldiers plus reserves is more than enough to man one fully equipped Armoured Division of 3;x Armd Bde , 1 x Arty Bde and 1 x Recce – Deep Strike Bde if you must. Push comes to shove we could easily re-role one of our 31 or so expensive and pointless light role Inf Bns which would in any event not last five mins on a future European battlefield in any scenario you would like to draw. If tank crews are the issue, re-role three light role Inf Bns – and yes, I’m an Infanteer.

          • Pongolo, how are the lt role battalions expensive? Certainly not from a kit point of view.

            Why are lt role Inf useless? – we needed them for IS/COIN in Op Banner (MACP). We’ve used lt role Inf also for counter-terrrorist duties, UN peacekeeping (eg UNFICYP), numerous MACC/MACM tasks, ceremonial, training and mentoring allied armies, Falklands garrison, Brunei detached duties, jungle warfare etc etc.

            Not every Infantry mission is about fighting the Russians in eastern Europe.

          • Your an infanteer and yet you seem unaware that 31 is the total number of infantry battalions and the only “Light Role” btns left are in 4X, which is supposed to become mechanised under the LMPV program.
            Oh and the Overseas Garrisons.

    • Unfortunately with only two Armoured Regiments, we will deploy one, plus a reserve.

      Hence 67 Trophy systems.

      All a tad pointless really, three Regiments were a bare minimum for critical mass, enabling the deployment of 100 +CH2’s.

      We are now sadly way below critical mass, it’s hard to see a point in so few tanks.

    • And no counter drone system on the turret yet by the look of it. May need a tracked Stormer/LMM/HVM type to protect it or the tracked SkyRanger and Shorad systems like the Dutch have just purchased running on the MRLS/M270 chassis that the UK has already and i think was the same used for tracked Rapier. As has been suggested before, even developing a shortened or half CAMM might be useful for shorad out to 10km+, to put on the back of a tracked of wheeled platform.

      • Quentin, none of our AFVs have had much of a meaningful defence against aircraft or helicopters. Protection has always been provided by specialist weapons to deliver point and area AD.

      • This is at least one program that the MoD are pushing ahead with, explicitly from lessons learned from Ukraine’s conflict with Russia. As far as I am aware, the MoD have two definitive counter UAV programs, where a kinetic means is being used. The first one is being rolled out now. Which is the SMASH Sharpshooter weapon sight, whose program is the Counter-Small Uncrewed Air Systems (C-sUAS) capability. The SMASH sight is a digital sight, that tracks a target and gives the shooter a predictive aim point to fire at. The sight can be mounted on any of the current and future infantry rifles along with GPMG and 50 cal.

        The second is based around a vehicle’s remote weapon system (RWS). They are being a bit coy with the technology being used. But it will likely use something similar to the SMASH sight, that updates the RWS with a motion tracker and predictive aiming software to the existing electro-optical sighting system.

        Both of these systems will give our troops a better method to deal with the smaller types of first person view (FPV) and bomb deploying drones. There is still the question of how to initially detect these drones at a decent stand-off distance. You can use passive radio detection, which can detect the drone communicating back to the operator. Which should give you a bearing and a rough distance to start looking in. However, the drones controlled by fibre optic data-links will be next to impossible to detect without something like a very high frequency radar.

        A Ka-band radar only requires a very small antenna. For example a fairly efficient AESA array that could detect these small drones at around 1km distance, would be the size of a matchbox. So it could be man-portable and powered by a 9v battery. Which means it wouldn’t be too heavy to lug around, in additional to everything else you have to carry. It could be tripod mounted and mechanically rotated to give you hemispherical coverage.

        For vehicles it is much easier, as you could link the vehicle’s APS with either the main turret and/or with a RWS. Which will give the vehicle an automated method of dealing with drones, with a potentially greater stand-off distance past 1km. For example if Ajax had APS, its CTAS 40 could engage these threats at around 4km, if linked to the APS. Following recent events against Hamas. Israel’s Trophy has been upgraded to deal with drones.

  17. JOIN US Making cash is very easy an simple now days. 2025 is the year of making money online . I am here to tell you guys that its so easy to make more than $15k every month by working online. I have joined this job 3 months ago and on my first day of working without having any experience of online jobs I made $524. This is just amazing. Join this now by

    Follow instructions here………….. 𝐖­𝐖­𝐖­.­𝐇­𝐈­𝐆­𝐇­𝐏­𝐑­𝐎­𝐅­𝐈­𝐓­𝟏­.­𝐂­𝐎­𝐌

  18. Combined arms groups have been winning battles since 1918, given air superiority allowing Close Air Support (CAS). CAS now includes unmanned. Air superiority now requires dominance from very low level upwards. Recce seems now to have the task of achieving very low level air superiority, via drone/counter drone operations. Heli CAS provides overwatch. It may be, therefore, that MBTs, once enabled by local air superiority, could now revert to firepower and mobility prioritised over protection; a great deal smaller in size. The success of Bradley in Ukraine refers. The small interim buy of C3, given fast moving developments in manoeuvre warfare, may very well be a sensible holding brief.

    • Monro, is recce tasked specifically with defeating drones?

      Interesting thought that the C3 programme represents an interim buy – MoD has never made that claim. Usually for something to be an interim buy, you know what the long-term replacement (for CR2) is, and the interim equipment is only in service for a relatively short time.

  20. The Challenger 3 is a major upgrade over the Challenger 2, with significant improvements in firepower, protection, and mobility. Here’s a breakdown of the key differences:

    1. Firepower

    Challenger 2: Uses a rifled L30 120mm gun, which is effective but limits ammunition compatibility with NATO smoothbore rounds.

    Challenger 3: Upgraded to a Rheinmetall L55A1 120mm smoothbore gun, allowing the use of modern NATO-standard kinetic energy and programmable rounds, significantly improving lethality.

    2. Fire Control & Sensors

    Challenger 2: Uses an older digital fire control system.

    Challenger 3: Features a fully digitized fire control system, including advanced thermal imaging and automatic target tracking, improving accuracy and situational awareness.

    3. Protection

    Challenger 2: Uses Dorchester composite armour, which has been highly effective but lacks modular adaptability.

    Challenger 3: Upgraded with enhanced modular armour and the Trophy Active Protection System (APS), which can intercept incoming anti-tank missiles.

    4. Mobility

    Challenger 2: Powered by a 1,200hp Perkins engine, limiting top speed and agility.

    Challenger 3: Receives a new suspension system and drivetrain, improving speed, maneuverability, and fuel efficiency, although it retains the same engine.

    5. Battlefield Connectivity

    Challenger 2: Limited digital integration.

    Challenger 3: Fully networked with modern battlefield management systems, enhancing coordination and data sharing with allied forces.

    Overall Assessment

    The Challenger 3 brings substantial improvements over its predecessor, particularly in firepower (smoothbore gun), protection (active defense), and digital connectivity. However, it retains the Challenger 2’s engine, meaning its mobility, while improved, is still constrained compared to newer designs.

    ChatGPT Compassion (I had requested the breakdown, thought others may appreciate tje data)

    • I’m tired of reading that Russia has bad weapons, while NATO countries have the best. Ukraine has proven that our weapons are not as good as we thought. My country is protected by the powerful Patriot, but it turned out that this system is not as powerful as the Americans presented it.
      We forgot that NATO invested several hundred billion in weapons in Ukraine, arming them for years, training them in NATO bases, providing them with logistics and what not, and NATO failed. We didn’t stop Russian soldiers. Yes, we helped, we slowed them down, but we didn’t do the job. What is NATO? NATO is not soldiers coming from a NATO member country, but our technology. Ukraine also has soldiers, probably much more experienced than NATO. Zelensky admitted that they have 880,000 soldiers, while Russia has 600,000. This is something that makes a big difference because for a side going on the offensive, it is generally known that they should have a 3/1 ratio. So, it turns out that the Russians are not as bad as we thought, in fact, as we wanted them to be. Everyone talks about how they are fighting for three years in Ukraine, but forgetting that Ukraine had a serious army before the war, with around 1,000,000 active people and 3,000,000 reservists. While when someone mentions Afghanistan, we always come up with some excuse. We are bad, NATO sucks, Russia is doing great and this is the sad truth that does not meet our expectations and it hurts, but it is the truth. Enough with the self-aggrandizement. Who cares how our tanks or systems or weapons are doing on paper and statistics, we need to prove ourselves in action and we are not that good at that.

      • Tbh, support for Ukraine takes time, because we are amid a big change in Nato. USA is leaving. So the single factor glueing the alliance is getting out of the picture. Now, if we look into it, USA actions were also a major reason for the military fall down of the alliance, platine a hegemon and discouraging all coopérations. Their departure has the mérite of strenghthening coopérations, like with in MBDA. Everybody has an interest in MBDA.
        Material start to be produced en mass, Europeans take responsibility. We are not as aligned as the Russian state, but not that bad either. The glue is taking.

      • Fascinating, hitting all the Russian talking points in a one-r! Don’t think it’s worth the time debunking all of your nonsense

  21. One thing people are forgetting here is Russia builds offensive tanks designed to be fast and and highly movable the challenger one and challenger Two our designed for dl defense with a much better firing range and targeting system challenger 2 and definitely the new challenger 3 could take out and advancing Russian tank before the Russian tank was in range. And what is it in the ukraines called The challenger 2 oh yeah the sniper rifle of tanks. I believe as well the ukrainians have now broken the existing tank on tank kill record set by A challenge one on a t55 in the golf war of three miles . There is a video of a Ukrainian t64 which is claiming to have taken out a Russian tank from about 6 miles but the tank was disabled first by a drone and then hit with 20 rounds before it was destroyed not by one single round which the challenger one took 34 years ago and the ukrainians have also claimed to have he called that multiple times with the newer challenger 2 yes they have lost some challenger 2’s but from what I can tell not one that’s been destroyed by another tank one was destroyed by hitting a anti-tank mine which started a fuel fire and then finished off with multiple drones after the crew abandon the tank and left the hatches open and another by anti-tank missiles

    • On another note regarding to whatever country say the Americans always like to brag about how great their equipment is his but in reality British Royal air force bombers defeated American air defense systems in a exercises in the 60s European euro fighter pilots recently defeated American f35 pilots in dog fights British challenger 2’s took on American and German tanks in a live fireing exercise and took out more targets than both the Americans and Germans

    • The reloading of the CR3s must be more critical if now only a fully load at 31 shots. Wasn’t the CR2 at 48? Everyone has to count.

  22. Start now making every month extra $6000-$22000 or more by just doing an easy online job from home. person can now get this job and start earning online by.

    HERE——≻≻ 𝐖­𝐰­𝐰­.­𝐰­𝐨­𝐫­𝐤­𝐬­𝐩­𝐫­𝐨­𝐟­𝐢­𝐭­𝟕.­𝐜­𝐨­𝐦

  23. Sad to see how many grown men talking absolute bollocks. First of all most UK tanks won’t even make it to the front line because they will be sold on a black market first. The ones that will make it will only last till first drone attack. Ukraine even running out of drone operators as russian ones started to viciously hunt them down recently. The was over when it’s started. You are only making it worse by supplying Ukraine with toys to get themselves killed with. Look at the Wests dating market, it is over flown with Ukrainian widows looking for husband now. Just sad.

  24. This new British battle tank sounds impressive! It’s great to see advancements in military technology, especially to stay ahead of potential threats. Can’t wait to see how it performs in the field!

  25. I think the new British battle tank has the potential to really outclass the Russian models. It’s exciting to see advancements in military technology!

    • Yeah I think and hope your right, Chally 2 on which it is based has turned out to be a very good tank and even Chally 1 the original Challenger more than held it’s own in Gulf War 1, Bosnia, Kosovo and all the other campaigns in which it proved it’s worth. I think we had over 600 Challenger 1 none of which were converted to Challenger 2 , a completely new build tank. What a difference it might have made to Ukraine if we had had the foresight to hold them in reserve. Anyway Devin thank you for your positivity ,blood to see amongst so much gloom. I agree , Challenger 3 looks like being a very good tank but I still have real concerns we will have too few . At least convert all of the remaining Challenger 2 (227? ) that would allow us to return to a proper three Brigade armoured Division rather than the two that we currently field. There is a reason that the British Army has always based our force structures around the rule of threes.

  26. Is this like the inflatable tank story..

    The chally is flawed and will never outclass anything other than another chally due to the failed doctrine behind it.

    The only thing it beats the opposition with is the boiling vessel and promotional bullshit.

    It is still a pig in lipstick

  28. Is it. Electric battery powered towing. A generator or just a massive extension for charging where ever it dies

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here