The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has released an Invitation to Tender (ITT) seeking suppliers for approximately ten batches of Tactical Multirotor ISR Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), according to a contract notice.
The procurement is valued at £2,250,000 and follows a restricted procedure, with bids due by 1pm on 17 March 2025.
Each batch will include two complete systems, “including all ground elements (e.g. 2 systems = x2 ground elements),” as stated in the notice. “The Tactical Multirotor ISR UAV ITT aims to procure approximately 10 different batches of UAS…which will be tested by the International Drone Capability Coalition,” the document explains. Suppliers whose platforms meet all the requirements during testing may be considered for a further production contract of around 25 systems per month.
“The systems must be produced and dispatched for testing within 6 weeks of contract award,” notes the tender, underscoring the rapid turnaround expected of successful bidders. The MoD’s notice also advises, “Bidders are to ensure that their system meets all qualification questions & entry criteria prior to submitting their proposal.”
The contract is scheduled to start on 14 April 2025 and run until 26 May 2025. Although considered suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), it is not marked as suitable for voluntary, community, and social enterprises (VCSEs). Additional information, including links to the procurement documents, is provided in the official notice.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
The latest rumours coming out of Whitehall are that the treasury will sign off on 2.5% by 2030 and 3% by 2035. To get this the treasury wants to control the way defence equipment is procured as they have no trust in the MoD and more specifically uniformed senior personnel. Not sure how this proposal would work but I can see anything that removes senior officers from defence program and ends the nonsense of two year rotations on multi decade programs being a good thing. The MOD still seems to be a wash with never ending programs with interesting sounding four letter acronyms that deliver nothing but cost millions to dream up.
2.5% by 2030? There’s no rush then, certainly no alarming world events going on. Nothing that should trouble us.
If we went to 3% tomorrow, you wouldn’t see any major impact for 5+ years. Before expanding we need more people. People take a long time to train. Especially fast jet pilots, technicians ect. But getting to 2.5 by 2030 does secure long term planning for future kit. And would hopefully stop many potential cuts in the short term.
Agree Robert, this sort of headline doesn’t really affect anything in the short term, and there’s not much left to cut really. Cut’s have been made for decades now, equipment and personnel.
Agree effectively you need to increase the annual budgets gradually..to allow increased staff base..but your capital programmes need to be separate and the money needs to be ready when the program needs it..so I would mean that some years you would spend 2.4% but another year if a big bit of capital funding came up you would spend 2.7%..then you may drop down to 2.4% again…the fixed annual budget for both ongoing costs and capital costs is the problem.
2.5% on defence spending also includes ex Forces pensions ,the myth of it all going on defence is some what different .And when there’s more Admiral’s and retired Admiral’s than ships in the fleet ,then you realise 3% + would be better . Telling people like President Trump you’ve increased defence spending ,then it should not include the pension percentage..That’s when you see how much is going on equipment.
I don’t trust MOD to get it right either, but I trust the Treasury far less. The reason for so many programmes that don’t deliver are the lack of cash. It’s an order of magnitude cheaper to run a test programme than to get something integrated into the forces as a permanent capability. As soon as you have to figure out the optimum operating concept, create a training programme, a maintenance programme, support and logistics, etc, etc, the cost of the programme is multiplied hugely. You can’t do that with every programme if you are starved of budget. Running multiple test programmes gives you a fighting chance of knowing which one to spend the big bucks on.
For the Treasury the answer is simple, spend no money at all. Pick target dates that are at least one election away, or preferably three. It’s generally easy to persuade politicians not to spend money — that’s awfully courageous minister — and if you have several of them to have a crack at serially, well it only takes one to cancel. 2.5% by 2030 is trivial and 3% by 2035 very difficult. So not only is it kicking the problem into the long grass (a Treasury specialty), it’s almost certain to fail. You have to do the tough stuff while public opinion is with you, and that’s now.
2.5% by 2030 was the Sunak plan, which was an underlying cut to conventional forces. Although his £75bn extra sounded very impressive, it was mostly just inflation and growth, and the rest so backloaded it had been pushed to another parliament. He only had to find £9bn over this 5 year parliament. As it came with £15bn+ new spending priorities (ringfenced R&D, munitions production, service family accommodation, etc) that would have cut upward of £6bn from current capabilities in this parliament.
The SDR will also come with big ideas that will have big associated bills. A Sunak-style plan will cause the further destruction of our armed forces.
Hopefully your rumours are found to be just that, rumours.
I’m praying that HMG are acknowledging the absolute folly of our current defence posture and lack of depth and capability gaps and are about to fill some of them. Getting to 2.5% in the next 12-18 months is not a wish it is a must-do.
If the UK is dragged into some form of peacekeeping deployment too Ukraine that will suck what little reserve forces we have. With forward deployments in the Baltic states and Ukraine meaning the British army is thread bare with virtually no reserves. If Ukraine peacekeeping force is done then the UK will need to get to 3% by 2027 with vitally important pre orders made now to get ready for an army of 90,000 + active troops as that’s what’s going to be needed. 2 full heavy armoured divisions as a war fighting force. We will of course have failed or more accurately our so called EU allies will have failed the moment the UK has to focus on a land army and war fighting within Europe. Our primary assets as a western European and Atlantic focussed nation should be naval and air power. The EU with it’s 500 million citizens and GDP x8 that of Russia should be able to handle the orcs
I wouldn’t get ahead of yourself predicting future force structures. Getting the Army back up to 90k would take an enormous effort. And we can’t just pluck people out of thin air.
Would we even be able to recruit for any army of 90K is my question and would the UK having an army of 90k vs 70k make any difference to the security situation when the JEF countries alone can call on 450,000 and Europe has 2 million already in uniform with another few million in reserves.
The British professional Army ethos has always been our undoing at the start of any major conflict. Great for colonial policing, useless in a major war. Reserve forces are five times cheaper. One consideration apparently in the SDR that the army is desperately trying to kill is a Territorial Army of 50,000.
Personally I would rather see us spend the money on this than spending billions to maybe get an extra armoured bridge at the front. We could use a limited draft to fill it up from school leavers who are not in full time education or employment and give them the choice between working in a care home or 2 year’s in the TA.
The UK should double down on air power and strategic enablers while building a war time reserve army.
Strategic enablers.
Many of which, if posters get their wish with the US UK split, will be gone anyway, leaving us little better than Belgium.
Otherwise, yes, I agree, Air power, sea power, and the niche enablers should be our primary area of investment.
We are not a land power. While we need the 2 Division, 6 Brigade enabled British Army, as it has slipped from that post 2010, that in itself won’t I think make a huge difference.
In the Atlantic, North, and expeditionary wise, we can.
I agree, however the writing is on the wall regarding the US and its strategic enablers. These will certainly only be available to Europe on a reduced basis if at all and it’s increasingly likely the US won’t have such enablers as it seeks to slash its own defence budget.
Someone has to step up and we are the best positioned in Europe to do so. We can do this on a global scale like the USA but I believe we can do it on a sufficient basis with in Europe to take on a medium power like Russia.
Agreed Jim, Finland is powerful beyond its modest size because it can call on forces of nearly a million very quickly because of its effective reserve structure and large material reserves. It makes sense that the continental powers should prioritise on numbers and land forces while we should offer specialist support there in support of their operations and quality over quantity in the early stages plus air power. Our main imperative there however must be in support of Scandinavia and the Baltics as a priority I believe. Meanwhile we should have a well organised reserve in numbers to draw upon as required to build and back up strength where needed. A long road before we train up, organise and provide weapons for them mind. But yes otherwise naval and air power should be the priorities in offensive operations again in cooperation with Scandinavian partners. I would like to see Sweden invest in a few larger vessels to be able to support Norway in the high north
I agree Spyinthesky, the military brass always what to tell us how we face an existential threat and we need to spend more yet they are never in favour of reserve forces.
Fact is we have not one a major European war without conscription and reserves since 1815. Look at what Finland and the Baltics can get on the ground for a fraction of what we spend.
If the argument is that the UK is not on the front line and must be able to deploy then we should surely be investing in AirPower which the Baltics and the Nordics lack and we can rapidly deploy from Uk bases.
@ Daniele, not sure many people wish for the US Europe split, because it’s essentially the death of western liberal hegemony..and in my view western liberal hegemony is a good thing in the world. But a partnership takes mutual respect and trust and that’s essentially gone..I think the best we can now aim for is amicable supportive neutrality, with maybe some very specific alliances…such as a UK US alliance around Atlanta security etc.
I certainly don’t wish the end of the trans Atlantic alliance and I don’t think many people in the UK or Europe do. It’s America that’s walking away for one invented reason or another.
Simple fact is most Americans care very little and no even less about what happens outside their borders, that’s always been the case but since 1941 their educated elites have been able to temper the isolationist impulse with an outward looking nationalism. That’s fading now and America is reverting back to what it always was.
Atlanticism is a British concept that we have exported to Europe and America who both took it on aboard as their own policy to a certain extent. We invented Atlanticism because we could no longer afford the Pax Britannia.
It’s dying off now and there is nothing we can do to revive it. All we can do is insulate ourselves through other alliances and stronger spending.
Fortunately we are in a quiet corner of the world surrounded on all sides by friendly nations.
Treasury control of military procurement would be a disaster.. also 2.5% needs to be a next year aspiration not at 2030 aspiration…at worse a 2.4% for 2025/26 and 2.5% for 2026/27
The Type 83 will be like the Type 42.
When history repeats.
Maybe that’s what’s needed, more numbers less Gucci.
I wouldn’t scoff at getting 16 AAW T31s
Just so long as we have top-notch interceptors and a good networked AEW, the sensors on the T83 itself might not be all that important.
As a fall back, T31 is actually a good option!
They already do.
HMT is one of the biggest problems defence has!!
And is sll it is.Rumours.
… and is as a priority a job for the old retired boys.
Hi Jim.. I did read one particular piece of information that suggested Keir Starmer may try to bring 2.5% defence spending forward to 2028. But, most info that I have looked at does seem to suggest 2030. Have to wait and see..
Endless projects that cost the moon yet deliver nothing. Are these just job programs for all these high rankers we have in all the services. We could probably sack three quarters of them and see our militaries capabilities rise. As with so much in our nation we pay way over the top for very limited results.
Repeat, wash, rinse, repeat. The merry go round of babble. We need mass, not BAOR. We need mass in the air and floating on, and under, the water. We need, imo, some land mass for future home use. Akin to the CRS in France. Because there is an enemy within. High in numbers, that increase day by day.
I wonder how the politics of just the last few weeks will impact the results of the SDSR and future budgets.
Interesting times ahead fellas.
Today-
85 percent of destroyed Russian armed forces equipment and personnel is by Ukrainian munition drones- The head of Ukrainian special intelligence service.
Drone warfare has arrived a new era has begun.
The above I already knew as every fundraiser for the frontline is mostly DRONES, REB jammers, vehicles, and also from the attrition sheets showing losses
Is this another part of the TIQUILA program ? As they have already been trialing and buying for it?
Ive never seen anything showing the British army’s vision for drone warfare, what UAVs , structure of units etc 🤔