The British Army’s Challenger 3 main battle tank has completed its first-ever crewed live firing trials, marking a major milestone in the programme to modernise the UK’s armoured forces, according to RBSL.
Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land said the trials, conducted in the UK, represent the first time in more than 30 years that a newly developed British main battle tank has fired its main armament on UK soil.
The live-fire activity forms part of a phased assurance programme intended to validate the vehicle’s safety and performance ahead of entry into service. According to RBSL, testing initially began with remote firing before progressing to crewed operation once key safety and system checks had been completed. Challenger 3 is fitted with the 120mm smoothbore L55A1 cannon manufactured by Rheinmetall Waffe Munition. The company said the gun is capable of firing modern kinetic energy anti-tank rounds as well as programmable multi-purpose ammunition.
Rebecca Richards, Managing Director of Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land, said: “This is a hugely significant achievement for the Challenger 3 programme and a testament to the skill and dedication of the teams delivering it.”
She added: “Firing the vehicle first remotely and then with a crew in the turret reflects the enormous amount of work that has gone into ensuring the design is safe, robust and ready.”
Richards said the trials demonstrated the progress made by the programme and marked an important moment for UK armoured vehicle development.
The Army’s Senior Responsible Owner for the programme, Mark Colley, said the milestone reflected close cooperation between the Ministry of Defence and industry.
“The successful crewed firing of Challenger 3 demonstrates tangible progress in delivering the modernised, Main Battle Tank the British Army needs,” he said.
Following completion of this phase, the tank will now enter further trials as it moves towards operational service. Challenger 3 is expected to form the core of the British Army’s future armoured capability. The vehicles are being designed and produced by Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land at its factory in Telford. According to the company, the programme draws on collaboration between UK industry, allied partners and European vehicle systems suppliers.
Congrats to the team. I wonder how the new barrel compares to the old one.
Jon, I was wondering that. Whether the Rheinmetall gun and projectile delivers better accuracy at range and penetration compared to the CR2 with a DU proj.
In general a rifled aerodynamic projectile will have better accuracy, whilst one fired from a smoothbore can travel further (the projectiles design and mass will determine this). For a tank gun, this is due to the projectile with the fins becoming unstable quicker that a spinning projectile, due interference from more drag. As soon as the round drops into the transonic zone, the fins on a smooth bore round become less effective at stopping it from diverging from the desired path. The spinning round keeps it straight for longer, as there are no fins causing drag to keep it straight. I’m trying to remember the percentage difference, 10% seems to be ringing bells. As in a rifled round is 10% more accurate than a smooth bore round (with fins).
However, for the L55A1 vs the legacy L30. This doesn’t quite match up. As the L55 uses a lot more propellent compared to the bagged charge used in the L30 to fire Fin rounds. Additionally the L55’s Fin round is nearly double the length of the L30’s. Meaning that due to the fineness ratio (length vs diameter), the longer round is more aerodynamically efficient, so will go further at a faster rate of knots. Additionally it will slow down slower than the shorter/stumpier L30 Fin round.
In essence this means that engaging a typical target at 1500m, the L55’s round will hit the target with a lot more energy than the L30’s. If the Fin round was made of the same materiel, the L55’s would be able to penetrate better and further. I’d say over the typical battle ranges a tank engages at, say 1500 to 2000m the L55 should match the accuracy of the L30. At the distances the Ukrainians have been using HESH against the Russians around 5km. The Ukrainians are saying its still effectively accurate, will the L55 be able to match that firing the multi-programmable HE shells? Firing something like the M830A1 shell, which is fin stabilized. I’m not sure how accurate it will be at those distances, as its fired with a higher muzzle velocity than HESH.
I’m pretty sure one of the Army’s conditions, was that the L55 had to be capable of match the legacy L55 for accuracy over normal engagement ranges. If it can do that past these ranges billy bonus!
Longer distances are the new normal.
Especially when Russians cover their tanks in fake ERA.
Sorry being a pedant here….don’t you mean…..
‘I’m pretty sure one of the Army’s conditions, was that the L55 had to be capable of match the legacy L30 for accuracy over normal engagement ranges.’ ??
Bugger, yep just spotted the typo.
What I find most interesting is the reversal of military history: rifled barrels dramatically improved accuracy compared to smoothbore muskets, but on a macro-scale, smoothbore tank guns are normally preferable to rifled.
Programmable multi purpose munitions… will it tidy your room or cut the grass if you ask it….
Don’t be silly, I’m getting rather tired of all this silliness on here, this Is a serious site I’ll have you know.
😁
What range was used?when Rhienmettal done their firing trails they had to go to Germany because ours were not up to standard for that ammo!
Castlemartin I would have thought
Let’s hope this testing regime incentives defect reporting as opposed to ‘that’ll do the job’…..
Really that is the AJAX issue – sweeping things under the carpet with a massive broom!
I think the current program position of not setting a date on this ones is sensible, fact is despite all the s**t people talk about challenger 2, it is still up to the job as experience in Ukraine has shown. C3 was in part a response to the T14 and the T14 appears to no longer exist as a weapons program. This means we have time to get C3 right and we should also consider retaining C2’s not upgraded because it’s clearly an effective weapon system as long as the ammunition lasts.
A small orphaned fleet with obsolete parts…..
I’d upgrade the lot TBH for the extra change it will cost. Every single serviceable hull must be upgraded.
The ammunition is a real issue as having a process to make ammunition for a tiny number of tanks is something that MOD would cut in heartbeat when under pressure and it isn’t NATO standard so no interoperability.
I disagree with retaining C2, Last thing we need is two tanks with two different ammunition types. I would like to see another 50 converted even if they are stored as a potential surge/replacement back-up but…money. We should have picked the German gun back in the 90s. Should have picked Leopard 2 TBH but we are where we are. And yes I know it’s not perfect and C2 probably has better armour (not sure about the Leo 2 A7V) but logistics wins wars and having the same kit as most of the rest of Europe would make support easier as well as upgrades.
I suggesting retaining them in reserve and not active.
My preference would be to see them all upgraded to C3 but failing that we should retain any C2 we can.
Interesting fact for you. Back when they were designing and testing the L30 gun. Royal Ordinance were also testing it against a smoothbore version.
However at the time the Army still really wanted HESH and believed the CHARM series of Fin rounds would be sufficient to knock out any rank at normal combat ranges. The rifled gun won obviously, as the HESH capability was a deciding factor. The company in a Belgium that currently makes the HESH the Chally uses. Designed a HESH shell that could be fired from a smoothbore gun. I believe this was done by angling the rear fins, much like on an arrow causing the shell to spin after leaving the barrel.
I too would like to know which range, all experimental firings were carried out in Kirkcudbright. Also what was fired Fin, HE, water shot?