British Army soldiers are a step closer to getting their hands on one of Europe’s most lethal tanks, as the latest Challenger 3 prototype has finished production in Telford.
The British Army say in a press release that, with advanced armour and devastating firepower, the Challenger 3 “boasts an impressive range of state-of-the-art technology, making it the most lethal and survivable tank ever operated by the British Army”.
The latest of eight Challenger 3 prototypes rolled off the Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) factory production line in Telford today.
The British Army also say that the first prototype is already showing its capabilities on trials. All prototypes will be tested under operational conditions to validate their performance and make refinements, before another 140 are built and delivered to the British Army.
“Challenger 3 will be the apex predator of modern warfare. With unmatched cutting-edge firepower, protection, and mobility, it will be ready to dominate the battlefield. The tank can reach speeds of up to 60kph and is armed with a 120mm smoothbore gun with higher muzzle velocity and greater penetration than its predecessor, Challenger 2. Its new modular armour and Active Protection System, which can detect and destroy rocket and missile attacks in seconds, will make it one of the best protected tanks in Europe.”
Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps said:
“In a more dangerous world, the need for vehicles such as the Challenger 3 is imperative, as the threats facing the UK evolve. This tank will be at the heart of the British Army’s warfighting capabilities and will be integral to the UK’s deterrence. The hard work and dedication on show in Telford and across the country is instrumental in driving forward UK defence innovation and delivering for our forces in the frontline.”
RBSL Managing Director Will Gibby said:
“RBSL is playing a key part in delivering the Land Industrial Strategy through its Challenger 3 programme, ensuring it benefits from the best of British engineering and manufacturing, whilst also sustaining valuable skills across the country. Delivery of the first pre-production Challenger 3 and the commencement of trials marks a critical milestone in our delivery of this impressive capability to the British Army and will provide our soldiers with a world-class Main Battle Tank made here in the UK.”
Challenger 3 is being delivered under an £800 million contract, creating many highly skilled roles, with nearly 300 jobs generated within RBSL, including 130 engineers and 70 technicians, and another 450 jobs across the UK.
We need at least 300.
Well we’ll need Trophy APS which means all those Lefties chuntering on and on about an Israeli arms embargo can all go get bent.
Plus ECM to counter drones
Or an anti-drone drone swarm capability. There are some remarkable systems in development. Remarkable because they are relatively simple using repurposed off-the-shelf technologies combined with state or the art electronics. Any successful counter drone technology has to be three things, cheap, plentiful and adaptable.
Mmm. I would be careful making claims about capability of a tank that will not be in service for another few years. Look at the effectiveness of drones destroying AFVs in Ukraine! And, drone technology is improving and being deployed more rapidly than counter systems (and tanks).
Its true drones are a highly affective and cheap weapon system. However, hasn’t an anti drone system been developed for tanks and vehicles? Could’ve sworn I’ve seen US vehicles with them deployed.
Have you not seen those adapted Russian ‘crab’ tanks in Ukraine, talk about back to the future they really do look like 1st WW throwaways but for the moment relatively effective against drones it seems certainly while moving and can’t be targeted by larger ordnance, even if it takes away pretty much all a tank supposedly offers other than a few degrees of turret movement. Funny old World and I suspect they will soon be countered. No one would seriously have put forward such a freak development before the Ukraine war.
The Russians lose a lot of AFVs due to design, training and tactics. Drones are a danger to everything on the battle field and can be countered, but at a cost to the defender. AI and drones will change the battlefield, land, air and sea forever. I have worked with drones for over 20 years (pilot and engineer) and watched their development. We could have done what Ukraine is doing over 10 years ago, but there was no appetite or vision in the MoD and military for this type of warfare.
Great to see the progress made. Hope ongoing testing goes well.
The lower hull looks largely (to this untrained eye) identical to CR2. Does this mean CR3 will need add-on armour to enter theatre?
I guess a “TES” CR3 will be presented soon enough?
I’ll make a plea again for the UK to invest in its own strategic indigenous MBT design and build facility for the next generation MBT (CH4?). Build them on a small, but continuous production basis, and not rely on others (Rheinmettal etc.) to keep IP and profits of any exports within the UK as well as benefits to the wider economy and society.
Using lessons learned from Ukraine and Challenger, the UK could produce a true apex predator next generation MBT. Be that to include APS, built in drone systems, better boggy ground performance etc.
It would be better to take a “chassis” of another tank and add our armour and systems.
We might get to export that solution later.
Cost is king in the end.
Before the Ukraine war, you would have had no luck in highlighting the declining fleet of CH2s. No one in the MOD appeared to be looking beyond CH3 and even then, committing to just 148 vehicles. Today, however, the sleepy heads in Whitehall, are it appears, listening to critics about the poor state of the Army’s tank fleet. Even though it’s unlikely CH3 order will be increased additional but lighter tanks would make sense. The new US Blocker or a 120mm Boxer (either wheeled or tracked) could result in a more flexible battlefield strategy for the war planners
I really hope so Maurice, but I have no faith – certainly not to make it a UK IP capability.
I can see a strong argument for a companion medium tank, but I think there is a real unique opportunity now for the UK to produce a true “Apex Killer” MBT which is a different thing to that of a light/medium tank design.
I do like the idea of a U.K. version of the US Booker M10, just be aware it isn’t a Tank. It is a tracked Gunfire Support Vehicle, designed to be part of Mechanised Infantry Units.
And it should be very easy for us to build our own version, it’s just another development of the ASCOD IFV.
So you remove all the posh recce stuff out of an Ajax, fit the more powerful version of the MTU V8 and stick a new build turret on. Just need to buy the 105mm gun from the US.
Come around to this idea of late. Seeing the effectiveness of outdated Bradley’s with an ancient cannon taking on T80s often effectively suggests that a better way to expand the tank fleet is adding to that 140 plus ‘old school core’ with lighter more flexible vehicles that can adopt modern innovative weapons as they develop from modern intelligent ammunition cannons, beam weapons, missiles and drones, or whatever else comes along. Covers your options I feel and any such base vehicle unlike a tank can develop in various directions as time and experience dictates so not wasted investment. Certain technologies utilised… Read more »
I’m curious as to why you are suggesting this. We’ll have lost indigenous design capablity so it will take a lot to kick start it. I think we have a turret centre of excellence but isn’t that it? We can’t just order a couple of hundred tanks if we are the only customer without it costing us an arm and a leg, and it doesn’t seem like we could export many to other countries if other Europeans go for a combined effort. I can understand why a slow steady build within the UK, it’s the need to design and update… Read more »
…many reasons and including many factors. The UK/UK industry has been able to produce in the past a long-line of world-beating MBTs. Sadly that capability has now been lost as far as I can see. Rheinmettal are German-led and the UK’s strategic needs are different. Others here can give better explanation of the history, but the closure of the UK’s heavy armour facilities (Leeds etc.) now needs to be reversed. Due to world events and the heritage of UK’s MBTs, I see this as an unique opportunity to rebuild the UK’s strategic capability in this area. This is my may… Read more »
Leeds is all gone and will never be back, the other Tank Factory up in Tyneside is another matter, it’s still very much in the game. But doesn’t produce whole vehicles anymore. It’s where Pearson / Reactive engineering build turrets and mine clearing equipment, both are owned by Rafael Ind. Spookily I like the idea of a light/medium weight vehicle like the M10 Booker and it would be very simple to produce here in UK. Do you actually know what a Sovereign Wealth Fund is ? It’s something set up by countries who have more money than they spend, such… Read more »
Tax levels are quite high in Norway as well. Part of our oil and gas money was used for tax cuts
I agree with that last bit we need to get together with those Countries and I think Poland though their present urgent acquisition of foreign tanks might delay that possibility. Not sure exactly what Rheinmetalls strategy is but if they are open to it then RBSL might be able to part lead such a programme and indeed use Panther as a main design element for such a collaboration that would at least give us the ability to build and develop the tank and derivatives here. It might even keep Bae interested in the business rather than as seems likely dropping… Read more »
…Crumbs ABCRodders. No need to be so condescending. Dial it back a bit a bit old fruit. Of course I know what a Sovereign Wealth Fund is. Maggie Thatch, plus successive Govs of all faiths, have squandered our wealth and sold off the Crown Jewels. In Maggie’s case I would argue that the cure killed the patient. Norway had the good sense to use its North Sea bounty to invest in a SWF and are now reaping the reward. As a double whammy of strategic benefits in terms of energy security and other benefits of wealth, I am suggesting that… Read more »
Thats gunna be one hell of a rainy day when they need to spend that then…
We have in the past, but we let that skill atrophy, and it’s really not something you can just get back once you’ve lost the know how unfortunately.
Its interesting though that in WW2 if you look at how many tanks the US had before the war started and how they just started production out of commecial facitilities it shows it can be done. Infact when you look at the libertry ships they turned to someone who had no ship building experience at all and he did what the ship builders thought was impossible. So whilst we’ve lost skills its not impossible to rebuild at pace. But what the UK is loosing is our entrepenureal and industrialist spirit to make things happen.
?
If you look at the M1 Light and the M1 Combat Car from the interwar period you can see just how iterative the designs oft he M3/M5 where. Same with the M2 Medium and the M3 Grant.
*edit* I think your confusing the ability to mass produce a specific design with the ability to design and produce a design in the first place.
No not really, one of the most successful aircraft of WW2 was built with literally no predecessor, the de haviland mosquito.
Non sequitur much?
And also wrong: De Haviland made it’s first aircraft in 1909.
Yes but making a twin engine strike fighter from wood was new, skills wooden airframe manufacturing has faded massively. You take my comments as if they’re binary, I’m giving examples of when it’s been done is not always practical or achievable but it has happened.
I’m taking your comments as binary because frankly they kind of are. You’re trying to bring up random examples of designs as proof that keeping an experienced design team isn’t actually improtant to bringing new designs out, while ignoring the fact that actually most of the designs you cite are from a progressive history of improvements. (Also the Mosquito was intially a twin engined bomber, and the last wood designs, which is such a minor point to try and differentiate on that it’s frankly grasping at straws, but even so: The last wood design DeHaviland had introduced was in 1937,… Read more »
So …Just to clarify…Are you saying those skills ,once lost, can never be redeveloped then?
Or just that it would take both time & money , and we have neither & therefore should ignore any inclination?
Edited to state: Ive just read further down the thread so can see you’ve already clarified your position further.
Sure Dern. I completely understand. However, I am a glass-half-full kinda chap and there is is still a little bit of faith left in me that says the UK can rebuild its strategic capabilities in a number of areas now, including heavy armour/MBT design and production, if we have the will.
It’s a bit like British Airways in the 1980’s deciding that they did not need any engineering apprenticeships any more. Of course several years later they ran out of engineers… Doah!
I doubt if the treasury / MOD is willing to open a publicly funded AFV factory, and for that reason, I would be happy to see a CH4 built locally under Rheinmettal’s management.
Failing that, I think the Panther KF51 is shaping up to be a world-beater.
Sovereign Wealth Fund.
AFAIK that does not exist right now (I will be happy to be proved wrong)
…which is why I am suggesting the UK needs to set one up pronto.
Wishful thinking.
Why not? In 1939 we had a very small tank industry by 1945 we had arguably the best tank in the world, the Centurion a direct development from the Cruisers.
The CH3 rebuilds are a perfect place to start. Needs wider tracks.
Exactly.
Okay so I think your selling the British interwar Tank industry short: For starters it was making small numbers of tanks (relatively) but it was a world leader in designs, pushing out ground breaking designs like the Medium Mk II, the A9 Cruiser and the A6 Medium MkIII, along with the Carden Lloyd Tankette which provided the basis for a lot of foreign designs (and a lot of British utility vehicles during the war), the Light Tank series, and of course the Vickers 6 ton (which became by far the most produced tank of the interwar period and served as… Read more »
Resident tank history nerd has entered the chat…
Good for you Dern, if you know it all we don’t have to.
We’ve now not practiced designing a tank since the 90’s, it’s a skill we’ll have to relearn slowly and painfully.
Why don’t we just do what the Chinese do a steal the design, China basically leap frogged a couple of decades at least of military (and commencial) RnD
I know its not a very British thing to do (in peace time) but actually setting up a teams that can rapidly reverse engineer foreign tech makes sense if we’re going into a prewar scenario.
…that would be an option to fast-track (as it were) 🙂
At that point you’re probably better off just building Leopard under licensce.
Under license you have to pay for it 😀. China literally imported fighters jets from Russia, took delivery of the first couple, cancelled the order, and then built their own. Russia was a bit pissed, but about a decade later exported their latest fighter to China.
You pay for stealing IP in other ways than money.
Well.our adversaries appear to be profitting from it no end.
Strategic thinking and common sense. 🙂
In this day and age, it is unlikely we will see a 100% UK tank design.
We either negotiate our way into the Franco German programme (gaining any workshare or share of export profits is unlikely without compromise), or we find other partners to jointly develop a tank. Preferably something a little different to the Franco German one to avoid competing against them.
I say something lighter and better suited to poor terrain and naval transport, perhaps working with Japan or South Korea.
From what I understand the ch2 is too heavy in the mud in ukraine and is not really getting used except for small operations. So yes I think maybe leave mbt for Europe and focus on a medium chassis for Ajax ifv type stuff . Though we all in with gdls Ajax and rheinmetal-bae Boxer collaboration now so I can only see any new vehicles coming from these two companies now , the booker m10 is GD so quite possible .
Albert, your a man after my own heart on this subject ,we must build a complete new tank and factory’s, British built meant something but now it means nothing, same chassis and armour design but a potential family of vehicles, eg recovery, missile battery carrier, drone killer based on the gephard 35mm design, by god they have proved themselves and you will get the nay sayers this and that about the potential of anti aircraft gun systems, but hindsight is a beautiful thing ,people like us know the deadly consequences and shortcomings if we do nothing, all the best 👍… Read more »
Some see the problem, many do not 🙂 (British disease).
Bang on Albert, have a good one today 👍 👏 🙌
Apart from the miserable main ammunition capacity.
I think the tank chassis would’ve needed a stretch or redesign to hold more ammunition. Pity the cannon couldn’t take 2-3 piece as well as 1 piece ammo. It still looks the business.
The M1 manages it, Leopard manages it.
The “new” tank is probably round the corner, thirty years perhaps.
Type 10 doesn’t however.
Yes, a nearly 40% drop I believe from Ch2, which sounds appalling. Maybe they should have stopped right there with it. I find it hard that they couldn’t have tweaked the design to carry a bit more than 31 shells, maybe with a slightly bigger turret? And and why didn’t they go for a more powerful 1500 bhp engine at the same time? I know nothing of tanks, but this surely must be way better than the Ch2 otherwise they wouldn’t have proceeded with the Ch3.
As for the engine, the existing solution is reliable and tested.
With these much vaunted UAVs and very quick artillery targetting, how much will another 500hp get you?
I am not an ex-tankie, but as a Scaley, in land rovers, we could not crash out off a hill top fast enough.
It’s the same engine size as the Abram’s and Leopard’s and I think the Merkava’s. Maybe a bit more speed and agility.
Reports from the 82nd Airborne tankers in Ukraine who operate CH2 say that their power to weight ratio is worse than Russian/Soviet and the other NATO tanks- which leaves the CH2 stuck in soft ground more often than the others, especially as it’s heavier than all of them too. Not all about top speed.
Agreed, how much can the crew take across country? 20mph? 30mph?
I suppose it depends on their situation.
In anything other than wide open rolling country, I don’t see much more than what you’re suggesting- because you’ll crash into something aside from anything else! Acceleration is probably more important- to get out of dodge quickly and change direction to throw off the other guy’s shot. Not sure if you’ve seen the drone video of the Bradley taking on the T90, but he seemed to be moving relatively fast between houses, but more importantly changing direction regularly while hosing it down with fire. But from what the Ukrainians are saying, I do think it’s a massive oversight to not… Read more »
Exactly, anything more than 30mph cross country doesn’t matter how good your engine is, your crew will be needing new teeth. Off road top speeds simply haven’t really changed much since ww2.
People also are terrible at judging speed on video in general I’d add. 30mph off road looks *really fast*.
Yeah, same with water- having operating RHIBs for diving and offshore transit vessels for wind farms, it gets bone-shaking pretty quickly!
The (very limited) reports I’ve seen on CH2 in Ukraine suggest that the power to weight ratio, or lack thereof gets them stuck worse than Leopard or Russian tanks (I presume the same with Abrams). That will be to do with the torque for sure, rather than simply the horsepower, but it should be addressed on CH3.
At 143 they will be rare than rocking horse sh1t.
They will still be vulnerable in all the normal places.
I would suggest a little hubris.
Well it seems that one Armoured Tank is rolling of the Production line more than can be said about the 5.5 BILLION AJAX cannot believe that they have proceed with this – 8 Years late they have suppose to produce 589 and they have 143 vehicles and NONE DEPLOYED
Why we haven’t scrapped this years ago and bought CV90 is beyond belief
Way too late to cancel now, AFAIK the problems look to be solved and the production lines are running now.
The CH3 is not so much a new tank as it is a new turret slapped on to the Challenger 2 chassis, it’s more of an upgrade than a new build. I would argue that 800mil is quite steep for 149 tanks if you consider that fact (5 mil per tank?), but it’ll produce a good tank at half the price of a brand new tank. The Ajax cost 5.5 billion but all vehicles will be delivered for 5.5 billion and not any more, the delays are bad but we won’t have to pay more for it because of that.… Read more »
I’ve no issues with the vehicle, just the number. Lost in the usual spin is the mention “British Army’s warfighting capability” Well that should be at minimum divisional scale. And 3 UK Division has 2 Armoured Brigades, with 2 furnishing Armoured Regiments. It’s not a Division, certainly not a conventional one with 3 manoeuvre Brigades which Divisions had before. Shapps is never challenged by any journalist on the finer realities when coming out with the hype. If only some of us were MPs challenging HMG at every turn. And the APS so far equips 1 Regiment, not all. Details matter… Read more »
It annoys me that the MOD has seen fit to scrap so many perfectly good CH2s, stating obsolescence as a reason. The tanks it is most likely to meet on the battlefield are T72s / T80 or T90s which are older designs.
Rheinmetall even tested its new powerful 130mm gun on a modified CH2.
Other countries mothball and refurbish their MBTs.
Some were scrapped way back, not long new. Others have been left at Ashchurch rusting as the sheds they were dumped in were in a state. Agree we are getting rid of too many, still useful vehicles, just noting that some are beyond it.
How many of each category is impossible to discern unless your inside.
I’m sure “Mr Hughes” on YouTube could get ’em back up and at ’em. Or have a word with the “Tanks-a-lot” chaps. 🙂
May be beyond it but why not save all the wheels, gratings and other kit. Strip them down don’t melt them down. We really are pathetic at reusing old stuff. Better to give them to the Ukrainians.
Curious if one day a RWS mounted gun could be tied into the APS system to automatically target slower moving drones saving the APS munitions for the faster missiles.
60 kph? Is that it? The CR2 wasn’t fast enough. A missed opportunity here for the sake of saving a few bob no doubt.
Don’t know were that came from wiki has it at 96 kph obviously that is on a flat road! However if anyone thinks that ANY MBT is capable of top speed cross country they are going to be disappointed.
On the road CR2 could do about 60kph and Leo2 was only slightly faster at 70kph ( a delta of just 6mph).
Off-road which is far more important, the CR2 has superior suspension and both probably do a max of 40kph.
I never heard anyone say they thought CR2 was too slow cross-country.
Have you been in a tank travelling at 40kph cross-country? It feels very fast.
Too big, too heavy, underpowered, too expensive, too short a service life, far too slow at 60kph, when its adversaries can travel in excess of 100kph in all terrain, bets that 60 max will only be available on metalled roads! Only 148 of these ‘wonder weapons’ will be produced, so enough for the current British Defence Force but not enough for an Army, when we eventually build one. Where are the secondary weapons? A compact 30mm cannon and a longer barrelled high calibre machine gun would be advantageous, anti-missile defences, etc.. Where’s the top protection from small kamikaze UAV’s? All… Read more »
I remember our warriors overtaking the chally 1,s in Batus, we were attacking defensive positions before they even arrived, but as proved in Bosnia they got stuck quite often,as are the chally 2 in Ukraine which is why they are using them more like a sniper ability rather than a head on attack, I do not know what power upgrades these have got if any but heavy things need a lot of power…
A good list of what these tanks should or could have had. And such a small quantity, is it really going to be cheaper than buying even a similar quantity of a completely new tank?
Quentin, do tell us which new tanks can be bought for less than £800m for 148 tanks (ie about £5.4m a pop), with a similar or better spec.
Morning Graham, I definitely know nothing about the price of tanks and anything else military and I’m not trying to be flippant. Money wise, someone has decided it’s worth it and it’s obviously a pragmatic decision to upgrade the Ch2 and it’s progressing. From a complete outsider the main negative is the drop in magazine capacity and i understand the new gun with the longer 1 piece shell. Someone has also made the decision that this is okay too and new tank is still a big step up in effectiveness and for a good price. I know nothing about tank… Read more »
And the Apache’s too. Only 50? Down from 60. Why not back to 60 or 70? Is having less actually still somehow being more effective?
Not sure where you are getting that 100kph figure from? Do tell us. That would never be the cross-country speed – not even a gas turbine powered tank can do anything like that speed even on metalled roads, let alone x-country. I have road (unless otherwise stated) speeds as follows: T-64 – 45-60kph depending on model – so slower than CR2 T-72 – 60-75kph dep on model T-80 (Gas Turbine, so not a fair comparison) – 80kph road; 48 kph off road T-90 – 60kph – same speed as CR2. Soviet/Russian tanks are much lighter than British tanks due to… Read more »
It remains to be seen how well it will perform on a modern battelfield with more and more advanced drones operational. The small number being produced will have a correspondingly small effect in a conflict unless the UK is fighting Belgium. How long would they last on the Ukrainian battlefront?
We had about 120 tanks on Op Telic. They did a good job and hada big effect.
Simply not enough hulls being converted to be of use. The MOD should be designing a new tank for our armed forces with plans to build them by the thousand.
I agree. They have the turret so half way there. Even if the turret needs more space for ammo.
I’m sure Chally 3 will be an apex predator and will kick the crap out of any Russian tank it’s likely to come up against.
Shame we can’t have at least 300 of them.
Keeping it in service until at least 2040. How about we start plans now for the replacement for Chally 3 and order those in decent numbers? As I said, at least 300 of them?
I believe Germany is the only European country still capable of building new MBTs. France only has the capacity to upgrade existing tanks and Italy is in a similar position. USA continues refurbishing and upgrading Abrams, but has struggled to select a replacement for Bradley AFVs. Our numbers of any platform are likely to be relatively small but we do need a sovereign capability to design and build new armoured vehicles. If the private sector can’t/ won’t do it, then a state owned facility like Nexter should be set up to build a range of vehicles, including MBTs, SPGs. We… Read more »
We used to have at least 5 AFV manufacturers who could design and build from scratch – all now swallowed up by BAE, whose last new build orders were for Terrier, Titan and Trojan. All that expertise has gone, and mostly the special facilities required for new builds too.
Hey it was the end of the Cold War bonus… oh wait a minute. How short sighted we have been and much because of the influence of the peaceniks who seem to be under the delusion if we aren’t a threat no one will be to us. Yeah right.
The Countries like ourselves who have lost the Capability to produce New MBT’s could still undertake this work if push came to shove,its all a matter of Political will and how much Money and Time you are prepared to throw at it.Have a guess where the recent order of Leo2 for Hungary was made ?.
Please pardon the uneducated (despite two shelves of military history books), but I am confused by all this worry about armour. The enemy tank cannot fight if it cannot see. So rather than endlessly trying to kill its occupants, why not focus on blinding its optics? Some kind of missile filled with gunk and a proximity fuse that blows it up 5m or so from the tank? Infantry, or perhaps an IFV, could then close in and finish it off.
The method for targeting optics seems to be using an airburst shell filled with thousands of little metal pellets, rather than simply colourful gunk. That way the lenses and mirrors get shattered rather than blocked so the problem can’t be fixed by climbing outside with a wet wipe.
I also think that for tanks the preferred option would be to just use APDSFS to kill the tank outright, but for Ajax with airburst pre-fragmented rounds that will be the main option for countering MBTs.
Sights,Optics and Sensors on Armoured Vehicles are pretty well protected in Armour Housings or in their recessed positioning.If your idea of ‘Gunk’ is a Liquid to blind them there are measures like Windscreen Wipers etc to prevent this,not saying its impossible just that it would take a lucky Shot to take them out.
Maybe they could use high powered paint ball macine guns?
Do tanks have windscreen wipers – if so I’d expect Halfords make a mint replacing them due to their low life expentancy/
My Honda ones hardly last the bloody winter driiving on UK roads.