Challenger 3: the heart of the Army’s warfighting capability

Under an £800 million (approximately $1,098.16 million/€930.64 million) contract awarded to RBSL, the UK is developing a new main battle tank, the Challenger 3, which is set to become the heart of the Army’s warfighting capability. It will provide the direct firepower and protection needed by the Army’s heavy brigade combat teams to close with an adversary and fight through well-defended positions. It is also hoped that the platform will contribute to reviving the UK’s defence industry and export prospects in the land domain. So, with a lot riding on this critical programme and first deliveries expected in 2027, let’s examine how it started, and where it is going. 

Context is everything

Like many British Army programmes, the requirement for Challenger 2 can be traced back to the late 1980s, and its procurement to the early 1990s, when the threat environment had dramatically changed. Challenger 2 was developed by Vickers Defence Systems as a private venture in 1986. At the time, the UK operated two main battle tanks, Challenger 1 and Chieftain. Challenger 1 had only entered service in 1982, but it performed poorly at the Canadian Army Trophy – a NATO tank gunnery competition – in 1987, which increased the demand for a replacement platform. So, a requirement was formally issued in 1987 and Challenger 2 competed against the M1 Abrams from the US, and the Leopard 2 from Germany. A development contract was awarded to Vickers in 1988, and Challenger was eventually selected and contracted in 1991. By that time, Challenger 1 had proven to be relatively reliable and effective during the Gulf War, achieving one of the longest range tank-on-tank kills in history. 

However, with the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union rapidly collapsing and disappearing as a threat, there was no longer any perceived need for the Challenger 1 to remain in service, and all efforts were focused on Challenger 2. The slimmed-down requirements of peacetime would shape the remainder of Challenger 2’s service life. For instance, the Challenger Lethality Improvement Programme (CLIP), in the early 2000s set out to replace the rifled L30A1 with a smoothbore gun firing single-piece ammunition. This required more space in the turret, which was considered too expensive. However, CLIP was later rolled into the Challenger Capability Sustainment Programme, which also included a new powerpack that would have provided room for single-piece ammunition and a new environmental control system for the crew that enabled the platform to deploy anywhere in the world. Then, in 2011, the MoD announced that the capability sustainment programme was delayed, only for it to be cancelled in 2012. This led to the Challenger Life Extension Programme (LEP), with the MoD more concerned about obsolescence rather than improving lethality. Several bids were received and two contracts awarded in 2016; one to Rheinmetall, the other to Team Challenger 2, which included BAE Systems and General Dynamics. 

• US Army plans to field M1 Abrams upgrade in 30 months – Calibre Defence  
• Project MARTE officially sets off to develop new European tank – Calibre Defence

Both groups presented their bids for the LEP between 2018 and 2019. BAE showed the Black Night, a modest upgrade providing improved imaging and battle management, while Rheinmetall proposed a completely new turret and the L55A1 120 mm smoothbore gun, as well as commonality with the UK’s Ajax reconnaissance vehicles through the Orion commander’s sight. Then, in 2019, Rheinmetall and BAE formed Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL), and it was agreed that work on the LEP would be conducted at the Telford facility. The Army then aligned its requirements with the original Rheinmetall bid in 2021, and work began on what is now known as Challenger 3. 

Where is Challenger 3 now?

As you might expect, there has been a lot of contract activity around the Challenger 3, and initial indications are that it has indeed supported a recovery of the British defence industry. Pearson Engineering is expanding its machining capabilities to manufacture the turrets, and MilDef won a £2.5 million ($3.2million/€2.9 million) contract to supply the generic vehicle architecture for the platform, while Rheinmetall will open a new barrel manufacturing facility in Telford. The notable contracts and announcements are shown in the timeline below. 

• May, 2021: £800 million contract signed with RBSL for 148 Challenger 3s. 
• March, 2022: Initial Design Review
• February, 2023: Critical Design Review for Challenger 3 completed, allowing prototype production to begin. First turret structure delivered to RBSL from Pearson Engineering. 
• July, 2023: £20 million contract for Trophy HV APS signed to enable demonstration phase. 
• September, 2023: First test firings with 120 mm L55A1CR3 gun – the L55A1 in Challenger 3 configuration – reported to be complete. They took place in April of that year
• January, 2024: Pre-production Challenger 3s go into trials. DE&S awarded a contract to RBSL to manufacture and fit an enhanced armour package. 
• September, 2024: RBSL reports two prototypes complete and trials conducted successfully with six more prototypes to follow. 
• October, 2024: UK and Germany sign agreement with Rheinmetall to qualify the Enhanced Kinetic Effect munition for the Challenger 3 and Leopard 2 fleets. 
• May, 2025: Rheinmetall announces new barrel manufacturing factory to be built in Telford. 

The trials are intended to test the design that was approved under the Critical Design Review in February 2023. This will lead to further revisions and adjustments based on how the prototypes perform, which in turn will result in the System Qualification Review (SQR). This will finalise  the manufacturing standard which will be used to produce the remaining 140 tanks. The SQR is forecasted to be reached during 2026, according to the Army’s website and all Challenger 3s are expected to be delivered by 2030. 

Calibre comment: What about drones?

Tanks have had a difficult time in Ukraine, with hundreds damaged and destroyed in heavy fighting there. While mines, anti-tank missiles and artillery have accounted for many of them, there is a lot of focus on FPV drones and their ability to defeat almost any armoured platform, or so it seems. It is worth analysing what makes an FPV so challenging in Ukraine, because it is far from certain that they are a threat that will dominate the tank and make them obsolete. 

FPVs are often armed with an explosive payload extracted from another weapon system, as opposed to a bespoke warhead designed for that purpose. These can include the PG-7V, the high-explosive anti-tank round fired by the RPG-7, which can penetrate around 250 mm of rolled homogenous armour. More recent iterations of that round can penetrate further, but the earlier versions are often seen. This type of round would be unable to penetrate a Challenger 3 from the frontal arc, and would likely struggle from the sides. It is safe to say that it is not the payload of an FPV that makes them a problem for tanks, but the mobility and control that they offer. An FPV can be flown at very low speeds, or even brought to a rest on the ground, to wait for a vehicle to pass it by before being activated. This means that users can guide the FPV onto a more vulnerable area of the vehicle, such as the engine at the rear, the tracks and roadwheels, or through open turret hatches. In other cases, as has been observed with the Lancet loitering munition, the pilot specifically directs the munition at the turret bustle, which is unlikely to be as well-protected as the rest of the tank. 

• Active protection systems and the future of tank warfare – Calibre Defence
• Israel to increase Merkava, Namer and Eitan production – Calibre Defence

However, few if any tanks used in Ukraine are protected to the same standard as Challenger 3, or even Challenger 2 when fitted with Dorchester armour. In these cases, the vehicles would likely offer a lot of protection from these types of weapons for the crew and critical systems Moreover, the planned integration of the Trophy active protection system could further extend the resilience of heavy armoured vehicles in an environment saturated by drones. Developer Rafael Advanced Defence Systems, has introduced a modification for the system that enables it to reliably intercept drones before they hit the vehicle, including when approaching from overhead. Together with the enhanced armour package from DSTL, this should ensure that Challenger 3 is suitably protected to complete most missions. It remains likely that large swarming attacks combined with mines and ATGMs would defeat the tanks. However, this has arguably always been the case. 

So, will the drone make Challenger 3 obsolete before it gets into service? The short answer is no, not on an individual platform basis. But the long answer is that it depends on how the rest of the British Army is equipped and enabled. 

By Sam Cranny-Evans, published on November 4, 2025. The lead image shows the first pre-production Challenger 3 ‘P1’ pictured after rolling off the RBSL production line in Telford. Credit: RBSL.