Seven Challenger 3 prototype vehicles have been delivered for the Demonstration Phase trials programme, with an eighth in the final stages of build, and the vehicles are being used to demonstrate and assure the performance and safety of the tank in preparation for manufacture, according to an answer given in Parliament.
Correction 21/10/1990: this article originally said Challenger 3 was moving from a smoothbore gun to a rifled barrel. It is the other way round. Challenger 2 has the rifled gun and Challenger 3 has the smoothbore. The two were simply mixed up, and the text has been corrected. Thanks to the reader who pointed it out.
Ben Obese-Jecty, the Conservative member for Huntingdon, asked how many Challenger 3 tanks have been delivered to date, following an answer given on 8 September.
Luke Pollard, the Minister of State for Defence, said: “Seven Challenger 3 prototype vehicles have been delivered to date for use in the Demonstration Phase trials programme, with an eighth prototype vehicle in the final stages of build. These vehicles are being used to demonstrate and assure the performance and safety of the Challenger 3 capability in preparation for manufacture.”
Challenger 3 takes the hull of the existing Challenger 2 and gives it a new turret, a smoothbore gun firing NATO standard ammunition, modular armour, an active protection system and a new sighting and fire control fit. Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land is building the vehicles at Telford under a contract covering one hundred and forty eight tanks, and the first prototype rolled off the production line in 2024.
The Demonstration Phase is where the design is proved before the department commits to building the rest, and the programme needs eight prototypes to run the firing, mobility, electromagnetic and safety trials in parallel.
The move from a rifled gun to a smoothbore reverses decades of British practice and was driven by ammunition supply, since the rifled 120mm round Challenger 2 fires is made for no other army in NATO and the industrial base behind it had shrunk to almost nothing. Common ammunition means Challenger 3 can draw from allied stockpiles, which matters more now than it did when the choice was first debated.
Delivery of the full fleet runs towards the end of the decade, with an initial operating capability planned for 2027 and full operating capability by 2030, and the one hundred and forty eight tanks will equip two armoured regiments inside 3rd (UK) Division.
Britain operated nearly four hundred Challenger 2 at the start of the century, and the conversion programme covers fewer than half that number.
Slight correction Craig, “The move from the smoothbore gun to a rifled barrel reverses decades of British practice”
Other way round👍
Yeah they’ve gone back to 21/10/1990 🙂 to correct that… So I guess that’s like it never happened
This report can’t be right because I read on UKDJ comment section from guys in the know 😜 that the gear box doesn’t work on challenger 3 and it’s basically useless 😀
I’m sure someone will be along shortly to tell us why it’s shit and why we should have bought leopard or the T90 instead 😂
Not true the TURRET gearbox is not strong enough,one of the trails vehicles has done over 2000kms in tests so far so that doesn’t suggest an automotive gearbox problem does it?
🤔
With so many negative observations from various commentators, I hope these trials prove the idea of conversion has worked. Weight appears to be the most concerning issue and additional armour on the turret has created a few headaches, all this without a turtle frame fitted.
Current CR2 runs at 75t with full TSE fitted! If the CR3 turret already has the armour fitted that only leaves hull armour to be fitted as and when doesn’t it?
Maurice, RBSL has always said that CR3 is only one tonne heavier.
Graham, reading between the lines, it appears CH3 has gained weight mainly due to the Ukraine War and lessons learned by their tank crews. The new turret and hull have new additional armour, which some say has increased the vehicle weight closer to 80 tonnes and that is without a turtle cage fitted. If this is true, a whole host of new support infrastructure may be needed for when the vehicle enters service.
148 would do if there are other vehicles to complement it, which seems lacking if the upcoming cuts are true.
An overwatch vehicle has been mooted with Brimstone , where is it?
Theseb148 will need leapfrogging assets of drone jammers and anti drone defences if they are to deploy in a war, as demo’d by NATO exercises with Ukraine unite acting as the enemy.
148 might be viable but the supporting assets are going to need cash and lots of it.
If they could add another 40-50 of these CR3s as buffer stocks maybe we’d all be happier too. I think a lot of us would like to see a C-UAS 7.62/12.5 RWS put on these tanks and APS kits for 2/3rds to all of them. What’s the point of just 60 if there’s ever the need to send say double that into “theatre” as they put it or even “multiple theatres”? And then what’s the point of swapping 60 onto other tanks, if that’ll ever happen?
I suppose that’s the point, the 60 Trophy systems being acquired, will probably equate to 50 odd being available with maintenance etc.
This tells you they have absolutely no intention of deploying both Regiments. MBTs have been reduced to a niche capability. I would imagine it took a tremendous amount of lobbying from the Army to keep MBT’s.
Since Chally 3 was ordered, we have seen a massive step change in warfare, with a rapidly evolving drone/ counter drone warfare environment in Ukraine that seems to re write the rules every few months.
Instead of the considerable investment needed to provide the myriad of counter drone abilities needed, now vital in any deployment, as even the Houthis have the ability for long range drone strikes, we are seeing further cuts instead.
There it is, they simply won’t invest in defence.
Thoughts on whether the overwatch snd C-UAS vehicles need to be tracked and how many would be needed?
CV90 for C-UAS and for overwatch using either MBDA Brimstone or CV90 120mm utilising Leonardo Vulcano guided munition (out to 30km), preferably both.
Oh! Apologies! Must have nodded off for a moment…hopeless dreaming…
How many would be needed?
300…like at Thermopylae…
No chance, no money. They are actively reducing the Army budget in real terms!
Bless ’em all
Bless ’em all
Etc. Etc.
I think the answer is aerial drones don’t need tracks but you need dozens for every MBT
David, 148 is not enough. 132 will be with the field force in three Type 44 regiments. Detailed analysis by RUSI shows that an effective armoured division needs 170 to over 300 tanks.
There will be just 16 tanks shared between the RAC and REME training organisation, the Repair Pool and the Attrition Reserve…not enough by far!
Two armoured Regiments within 3 (U K) Div ? I think that’s wrong . The whole point the RAC are moving to a Type 44 model is to enable all three Regts currently equipped KRH,QRH and RTR to remain MBT .
That’s my understanding too Pongoglo.
Three regts @ 44 tanks = 132
Trials and training = 16 (As at present)
= 148.
There really needs to be a wartime attrition reserve too, as you can lose a lot of tanks in a morning’s combat. A 50% reserve/74 tanks, would about do it. We have that number and more in the Challnger 2 pool, but will.they ever get added to the CR3 production line?
148 is what you will get. It will be one or even two “regiment” in reserve depending on frontage to cover. 2 weeks-1 month of combat and change to M1 Abrams.
Seems bonkers doesn’t it? If the CR2 tank stocks are there can’t they see the sense of some additional CR3 buffer stock? Money well spent. Obviously give you the option for additional regiment and or replenishment stocks of existing ones. Germany, Poland, Norway, Sweden, Italy, France all have pretty decent tank fleets. More tanks mean more contribution and in more places. And they miight be needed in a future Ukraine.
You’re not taking into account maintenance and repairs Cripes. I see absolutely no reason to believe the Chally 3 fleet won’t be maintained and supported on a shoe string budget, as is currently the case, with Tanks waiting for parts etc.
So your total active fleet will actually be 120 ish
Unless they are planning on 30 MBT regiments, I don’t know how it would possibly work.
I suspect it’s a simple case of General Blusters bullshit, the same Generals who are moving a fantasy ‘War fighting Division’ around a map in their imaginations.
Absolutely pointless 148. Many will be used as scrap to service the ones that break down as is always the case with military equipment. Either order thousands or don’t bother at all.