The Challenger 3 Main Battle Tank will receive a new modular armour system under a contract with Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL).

This armour, developed in collaboration with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), aims to significantly enhance the tank’s survivability in modern combat scenarios.

The armour, which has undergone initial integration trials in 2023, will now move into the testing, manufacturing, and integration phase. It is designed to provide advanced protection for the British Army’s Challenger 3 tanks, which will be a crucial element of the Army’s future Armoured Brigade Combat Teams and the UK’s contribution to NATO deterrence efforts.

Colonel Will Waugh, Senior Responsible Owner for the Army’s Armour (MBT) Programme, stated in a press release, “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 contract is part of the Land Industry Strategy, which seeks to bolster British intellectual property, maintain the national supply chain, and secure jobs and skills within the UK. The project is expected to support up to 58 jobs in Newcastle and Telford during the initial manufacturing phase, with the potential for additional employment if export orders are secured.

RBSL Managing Director Colin McClean highlighted the industrial benefits of the contract, stating, “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, Major General Darren Crook CBE, noted that the contract “illustrates our collective commitment to developing and securing skills in the defence sector for future generations, showing the Land Industrial Strategy in action.”

Lisa West
Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

85 COMMENTS

  1. Does anyone have any information on how the ammunition is stored on c3, I do hope it’s going to have blast doors like most modern tanks now have after seeing what happens to tanks in Ukraine

    • Detailed and accurate Information on CR3 is hard to come by. It seems to be the case that about 15 ready rounds are stored in the turret bustle behind blast doors and the remaining ammunition is in a number of locations in the hull, including near the driver. There are fewer rounds carried overall (up to 37?) than is carried by CR2.

      CR2 does not have blast doors and blow-off panels but stores the ammunition charges in a quite safe way in pressurised glycol containers below the turrret ring.

      When you talk about ‘tanks in Ukraine’ you need to be specific. T-series tanks with carousel autoaders are prone to the ammunition exploding on penetration and the blast vapourising turret crew and blowing off the turret. Other tanks experience a different and less dramatic effect on penetration.

      • So in ref to tanks in Ukraine yes of course the t series tanks however the picture of the confirmed c2 destroyed shows its turret became separate from the hull indicating similar explosions as some of the t series tanks where as the l2 and m1 explosions look more like they just burnt down and the crew would get out (I’m aware that the c2 the crew got out) I’m just hoping the ammunition is stored behind blast doors

        • So the CH2 Ukraine was an exception. It was disabled by a mine and then hit with pretty much everything Russia had from guided AT weapons to artillery. Nothing would have survived a direct onslaught to that degree. It wasn’t from a single ATGW.

          • I agree no tank would have survived a similar attack I’m just concerned that having ammunition in bins with the crew has been shown to be dangerous by all means have the sabot in there with them however I don’t think it’s now 2(3) piece ammunition

          • Chally 2’s L30 gun uses two part ammunition (3 part including the blast tube) which means the crew can separate the propellent charges from the round/shell. For example the armour piercing fin stabilized discarding sabot (APFSDS) is with Charm 3 a solid piece of metal (depleted uranium alloy). The HESH shell is now made from an insensitive munition. Where the plastic explosive is less sensitive to temperatures. Where in the past if was really hit it could give off a vapor, that found be ignited. The new explosive made in Belgium can get to much higher temperatures before breaking down. As Graham has stated they are stored in wet bin containers. Which is a further form of protection. This bins are in the hull.

            The new Rheinmetall 120 L55A1 uses one part ammunition, similar to a rifle cartridge. Where the round/shell is attached to a brass/expendable cartridge. Which contains all the propellant. The APFSDS dart uses most of the length of the cartridge and is surrounded by the propellant. If the cartridge is pierced by very hot shrapnel it will ignite just the same as any propellant.

            RBSL has confirmed that Chally 3 stores a number of ready rounds in the rear bustle. The magazine does have a blast proof access door to the turret compartment, as well as blow off panels on top of the turret. However a number of rounds are also stored in the hull.

            Because the turret bustle houses the ready round magazine, plus a lot of other kit such as the air con/heater and CBRN filters etc. It also will include large air gaps for the spaced armour. Therefore some rounds have to be stored in the hull. These are stored in an armoured magazine next to the driver. Which is the same layout as the Abrams and Leopard 2. RBSL have not said if this magazine is wet or dry.

            They could have designed the new turret to carry more rounds. But as the rounds are around 900mm long. There’s only so much you can fit around the magazine. As you still need depth for armour. Orcas per the Leopard 2 have the turret extend to nearly the rear of the tank to create more useable volume. I would have said quite rightly the Army wanted as a minimum the same turret armour protection from the new turret as the legacy turret, if not better. Hence the smaller number of rounds held in the bustle magazine.

          • Your not telling me anything I don’t know being as I was armoured infantry you can claim as much as u want that its perfectly safe to store various rounds within the crew compartment as much as u like but it isn’t as safe as being stored behind blast doors this is just a fact

          • No I quite agree, it would be far safer storing all the 120mm rounds in the turret bustle that incorporated a blast door and blow off roof panels. However, it is not always possible due to the design restrictions of the tank, hence Chally 3 storing more rounds in the hull.

            Chally 2 could have been designed to have the propellant charges stored in the turret’s bustle. But I guess when they designed the tank, they believed the risk of storing the charges in wet containers was sufficiently low enough to warrant fitting them in the hull. Definitely not ideal, but safe enough to allow the crew to get out when hit.

        • People love repeating that particular piece of Russian propaganda:

          Look the CR2’s that was destroyed had it’s turret move by so little that it was effectively still in it’s turret basked. The entire crew survived and escaped to fight another day. It is in no way similar to the T series tanks that launch their turrets hundreds of meters away and vapourise their crews.

          • How is it Russian propaganda? It’s obviously a thing that happens which is why every single western tank design now stores ammunition behind blast doors and if it’s not a problem why is it apparently the c3 has some ammo stored behind blast doors you can’t just say oh it’s Russian propaganda at everything h don’t agree with it’s clearly obvious that storing ammo behind blast doors is better than not and just because the c2 that was destroyed in ukraines turret only moved a little bit doesn’t mean it’s not a problem it might have only had 1 round of ammo in there for all we know I’m going to stick with my view that ammo behind blast doors is better

          • How is the line that the destroyed Challenger 2 tossed it’s turret like a T-72 Russian propaganda when I just explaiend how those are two very different events?

            Yeah, if you’re going to be that much of a kremlin shill then there’s no helping you.

          • U said people like repeating this Russian propaganda I’ve only pointed out that I think ammo should be behind armoured doors and again pretty much the entire west agrees btw cut the crap about calling me a Kremlin shill will u

          • I specifically pointed out the Challenger 2 being equated to T-72 turret tossing is Russian Propaganda. Propaganda that you are uncritically repeating like a Kremlin shill, which points to you being a Kremlin shill.

          • Oh so by pointing out c2 has had ammunition explode inside its hull has caused the turret to separate from the hull is now Kremlin propaganda get a grip will u

          • Look the CR2’s that was destroyed had it’s turret move by so little that it was effectively still in it’s turret basked. The entire crew survived and escaped to fight another day. It is in no way similar to the T series tanks that launch their turrets hundreds of meters away and vapourise their crews.

            Are you stupid or just that much of a Kremlin stooge? I’m going with both.

          • Who u calling stupid,when I’m pointing out that it’s better to have ammunition’s stored behind blast door the fact that the turret only separated slightly could have been that it had shot most of it ammunition and the explosion wasn’t as large as it might be had it had full scales of ammunition u don’t know and just seem to think u know better than every other tank manufacturer who has decided that it’s better to store ammo behind blast doors, u don’t the only stupid person here is u u seem to think storing ammo in the hull with the crew in tin cans is better than sticking it behind blast doors you moron

          • Do you know that ammunition for our rifled 120mm is fundamentally different to that for smoothbore? The separate charges for the former can relatively safely be stored in glycol-surrounded charge bins below the turret ring.

          • The Leopard 2 has spare ammunition in the left front of the hull tgat is not protected by blast doors. Also effort is bing made to make explosives insensitive so they do not explode when exposed to exterior heat.

    • The only number that matters is ‘148’. The number tanks they’re going to procure. Totally inadequate almost comically inadequate if it didn’t put British forces in such vulnerable position.

        • Why are you saying that? RBSL is building 148 CR3s. If they needed, say 4 CR2s to build one CR3, then the army would have to supply 592 tanks!!

          • I never said they need 4, but there have been mentions that because C3 uses the same hull, power pack, etc as C2. It’s not a straight 1 for 1 swap.

          • The hulls that were not used are the ones that failed ultra-sound weld tests or excess wear to bottom. Most could be repaired but not economical as plenty others due to downsizing. Final drive units most likely not one for one as have hard life.

    • I had wondered given we will now have a new turret in production, once remanfacture of the Challenger 3’s are complete, how about design a new hull the turret can sit on. Build some completely new tanks and as the Challenber 3 come up to retirement in 10 years swap the turrets over to new hulls.

  3. I agree. By the looks of it, another Challenger 2 was lost recently in the Kursk offensive – killed by a Lancet drone. From what video is available online, it looks like quite a catastrophic explosion.

    Is Dorchester armour now truly obsolete? I too would love to learn more about the new Epsom/Farnham armour earmarked for the Challenger 3 (with the understanding of course, that it’s top secret and not much might be in the public domain).

    My concern with the Challenger 3 is not the turret but the hull. I understand it’s hardly been changed from Challenger 2 and we all know the inherent weak spots with that.

    • Well IF there has been another loss and that is subject to debate,both of them have not had the TES armour added that any of our tanks would have as it’s not been supplied to Ukraine. As was proven in the gulf wars the armour could withstand the weapons available at that time so it is reasonable to expect today’s armour would take into account current weapons technology.
      As to the suggestion of CR3 turrets on Leo chassis,why? Leo’s and indeed Abrams have not been proven to be any more survivable than Challenger probably less so given their losses in previous operations! Rhienmettal have said that challenger hulls can be built if the MOD want them.

    • Hi David, if you look at the challenger 2s in Ukraine they are not supplied with the theatre entry standard armour that British army tanks are equipped with when entering a theatre.

      If you look at any modern upgraded MBT they all have extra armour added to to the hull…infact it’s more advantageous to not have your MBTs wandering around with its full armour…a theatre entry challenger 2 is 11 tones heavier than a challenger 2 wandering around in the UK…that’s a lot of strain on the power plant.

      • I just done a quick google and your about right👍I must admit to not thinking it was that heavy but a M1A2 v3 with tusk is coming in at 71t so not too much between them.

        • Indeed most of them are now north of 70tones theatre entry. Which does beg the question are the majority of modern western MBTs to heavy ? Russia has very specifically kept the weight of its MBTs down to the 50tons range..even a modern T90 variant is less than 50 tons..France has. Gone a different way with even the most heavily armoured modern Leclerc only weighting in at 56tons..as the French value strategic mobility above more weight of armour…it’s got comparable protection to the front, but I believe the sacrifice is to the side, which would fail against a 40mm kinetic antitank round.

          interestingly there is an interview with a Ukrainian challenger 2 crew and they do say it’s a bit to heavy for the theatre..

          “Cross-country mobility is difficult,” one tanker said. “For our ground” the 71-ton British tank “is heavy.”

      • Looking at a load of German, British and Soviet tanks a couple of days ago it was noticeable that the older German ones had much thinner tracks than the others, consistent with their reputation for getting bogged down in deep snow or mud.

        Physics says that weight over contact area is important so looks like that lesson had been learned and other factors such as cost of materials and survivability under fire may have been thought more important previously.

        It was also interesting to see the results of T-72 turret tests with the same gun it carries, i.e. T-72 on T-72 fire. More than 50% of shots penetrated the turret so thanks to the auto loader would have been a turret flip.
        Conclusion: you really wouldn’t want to be T-72 crew.

        Interestingly the performance of 57mm from anti-aircraft guns was even more deadly than the 125mm gun. Echoes of the 88mm gun originally built for AA use. Probably confirms that Sabot rounds would be through like a knife through butter. Muzzle velocity matters.

    • But the 2nd video stopped at the blast. No video or photographs of wreckage. Perhaps it survived..the lancet looks like may have missed as well.

      • Hi Pete,

        There is a picture out there of what is clearly the remains of a Challenger 2 L30 gun barrel with its distinctive thermal sleeve lying on the ground. Now, whether this is authentic and is from the apparently destroyed Challenger 2 is up for debate but from the picture at least, it is definitely a L30 gun barrel.

        • Not denying the 1st incident. It’s the validity of a second incident I questioned. Evidence presented was non evidence.

      • Hi Alex,

        True – we don’t know where the Lancet hit (if indeed that’s what actually happened) but the explosion/fireball on the video is pretty large. Hull breach? Would the Dorchester armour on the turret stop a Lancet? Maybe it penetrated the thin turret roof?

        I guess what I’m getting at is Dorchester armour now totally obsolete? I’d like to hear what the Ukrainian tank crews think of the protection offered by Challenger 2? Any hits that didn’t penetrate, etc.,.

    • That report or video posted by the Russian propaganda machine was also considered by some western viewers to be a T-64B brewing up, although I have not seen the clip myself.

      Even if UKR has lost 2 out of 14 CR2 tanks to enemy fire, it is over-dramatic to say that its armour is truly obsolete as this represents a very low loss rate, ie its armour is still very effective and that is the basic factory-fitted armour and not that with Theatre Entry Standard (TES) additions. It is worth recalling that all 4 crew members survived the incident of the loss of the first CR2 tank last year.

      I would love not to know anything about Epsom and Farnham armour – let our armour secrets remain secret.

      As regards the hull, there are few details to be had other than some armour enhancements have been made, alterations made for smoothbore ammunition stowage, and Heavy Armour Automotive Improvement Programme (HAAIP) upgrade done which includes engine improvments (incl. a new cooling group) and 3rd Gen hydrogas suspension.

  5. The Challenger 2 was a Margaret Thatcher era weapon and with them being on display in Moscow there illustrate the need for better amour

  6. The bits of a re emerging industrial capacity are very slowly starting to take form. New heavy gun making facility at SFM and now Armour production at Telford, RR owns MTU and the former BAe Tank factory at Newcastle has Pearson and Responsive Engineering who are busy building all sorts of bits.
    If only some Politician would either order new build CR3 hulls or sit down with US, Japan or another Western Nation that needs a future MBT.
    Be under no illusions if things don’t change Europe will be dependant on Germany for AFVs and they play their own Political games.

    • As we have seen with Eurofighter Typhoon export sales, and failure to supply Taurus missiles.

      It’s hard not to suspect that Unification came with some compromises including ongoing ruzzian sympathy.
      Nordstream being a €Billion reason to remain dependent on the terrorist state.

      I’d be so happy for evidence that ruzzian sympathy was gone..

      • Interestingly I worked with a couple of East Germans years ago and they really did not like the Russians much…the East Germans had a realistic understanding of the Russian state.

        • A family member of mine nearly got punched in Berlin for speaking Russian back in the 90’s. Maybe the newer generation has some Russian sympathies, but the East Germans who lived through the occupation have about as much love for the Russians as the Poles or the Czechs.

      • Gosh I’d love that job, just watching them squabble away, agree on nothing, achieve nothing and spend lots of money for doing nothing.
        Except it does achieve something, it wastes time and France will need a replacement for their MBTs sooner than MGCS can deliver.

        Meanwhile Germany has pretty well cornered the entire European AFV Market.

        • It surely makes sense to observe what the 2 most significant countries on the Comtinent are doing regarding future tank development. Also worth seeing what the Americans are doing and maybe the Koreans. I am sure RBSL will also wish to show us what smart ideas they may have for a tank after CR3.

    • How true. Personally I hope we go with a group of countries like Sweden who also have capacity and seem to understand the Russian threat. That will still exist because they will likely want revenge and are it seems permanently unsettled.

  7. Are there any counter drone RWS’ utilising a 12.5/ 7.62 in place or development for the CR3s, Boxer and Ajax? The “Smash” system mentioned here before, is it being developed for vehicles?

    • Surely what is needed is a sort of miniature Phalanx system for vehicles? Drone CIWS?
      I imagine something with an E/O turret or ADAD on top, controlling a machine gun in a non-penetrating mount.
      Make the sensor turret disproportionately large and paint it white for effect.

        • Do our tanks have the power generation to do EW?
          If autonomous self guiding drones become a thing (more like a slow, cheap ATGM) there will be no comms to jam, so I think that some sort of offensive weapon will be needed.
          Whether that is kinetic or some sort of DEW is a more likely dilemma.
          We may see that power generation, as with warships, becomes a limiting factor on the survivability of the next generation of MBTs.

          • CIED EW used to be man portable, pretty sure an MBT can support much more powerful counter Drone EW.

        • The speed and adaptability of EW software means that it can track the UAV innovation given enough focus and of course budget.

          I’d be surprised if Directed Energy Weapons don’t replace CIWS because they will be superior on rate of engagement and kill. Phalanx is fine on a battleship but weight and reload mean that DEW is better for a vehicle. Cost of DEW shots also more sustainable.

          As you say, it’s better if you can defeat the control system with EW. Perhaps Return to Sender would be possible as an instant Trophy and Reuse approach..

    • Already exist. Though the light 30mm air burst versions are probably the better gun option, as you don’t have to directly hit the target. Also the safer option in urban areas. eg EOS Slinger RWS. You don’t need vehicle specific RWS. They are designed to be vehicle agnostic, so long as the vehicle can take the weight & recoil.

  8. Hi, would a new tank design be best based on the Merkava tank. But with everyone in the Hull and a rear door and an unmanned turret with an auto loader ?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here