The Ministry of Defence has launched a formal procurement process for Project Corvus, a next-generation uncrewed aerial system intended to replace the British Army’s Watchkeeper drones.
The contract, published on 31 July, is valued at £130 million and will run for an initial five years starting in May 2026.
According to the notice, the system must support the Army’s Land Tactical Deep Find requirement, delivering 24-hour persistent surveillance across divisional and corps-level operations. The competition is being run by Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) based in Bristol.
This follows earlier reporting in April when the Army issued a Preliminary Market Engagement Notice and began industry consultation. At the time, DE&S stated its aim to field a modern, deployable and supportable system that would not require significant changes to current Army doctrine or structures. The system is to be operated by 47 Regiment Royal Artillery, the unit currently flying Watchkeeper.
The key requirements remain unchanged. The replacement must provide real-time land and maritime ISTAR, low-latency data sharing across joint and coalition networks, and the ability to operate in contested airspace and GNSS-denied environments. Technological agility and compatibility with the Land Industrial Strategy are also mandatory.
The procurement is being conducted under the Procurement Act 2023. While no submission deadline is listed in the preview notice, the contract is expected to begin in May 2026 and run until April 2031, with options to extend.
Earlier documentation also confirmed that shortlisted suppliers will be expected to participate in live flight demonstrations. These are likely to be held at MOD test sites or at contractor facilities, subject to airworthiness approvals.
Project Corvus is one of the Army’s flagship digital battlefield programmes and a key test case for future procurements under the new acquisition regime.
Given Watchkeeper cost £1 billion I’m not sure what the MOD expects to get for £130 million. I’m not sure what can be considered survivable on a modern battlefield either but what ever it is your not getting it for that price.
Cheap, OTC, attritable is what is needed.
However that may not produce sufficient staff officer positions and jobs for the boys in industry.
I think the £130 million is for the “Jobs for the boys” and not any actual hardware apart from maybe a new boardroom table, chairs, coffee machine, Laptops, Company Cars, Free meals and Hotel accomodation.
And first class fact finding missions to the US and Australia.
Strange comment Jim. You say you want something cheap and attritable, say #130m won’t stack uo to the #1billion for watchkeeper….if uts attritable it will be significantly cheaper!!!
I am saying something cheap and attriable yet the MOD is saying is wants something survivable that sounds like a direct watch-keeper replacement and on a budget of just £130 million.
I don’t think they can get that for that kind of money.
Hello Jim, I’m reading the article and interpreting the £130 Million as the costs of the Procurement process, not the equipment itself ?
Probably got it wrong but that’s how it reads to me and would fit with your thoughts about what it can buy.
“It’s still early and I haven’t had my Oats yet.”
You are correct.
Pete, excellent ISTAR sensors and secure data links won’t be that cheap.
wont they…costs of such systems have been falling. Large long wide area endurance fleet drones were fine for Afghanistan but as Ukraine is showing, in a peer conflict they wont last. A fleet of smaller scale / moderate endurance drones…a system of systems. is whats required. Watchkeeper concept is dead.
While I agree with you, the wording we’ve been hearing over the last year, like “robust” suggests the Army is thinking more along the lines of a few more exquisite drones again.
“It is also expected to operate robustly in contested airspace and GPS-denied environments.”
I think this is unrealistic. More, cheaper drones could provide sufficiently good targetting with numbers making up for lower grade sensors. We have something like a dozen Watchkeepers, whereas even ISTAR drones can be produced in the tens of thousands, relying on smaller size to make them harder to hit. Having them satellite linked shouldn’t be impossible in the world of satellite clusters and 1kg SATCOM systems exist. The question for me is how can you blend the distance/duration requirement with a smaller size.
The Army already bought in 250 Stalkers through Project TIQUILA for less money than this project’s budget. Loathe as I am to buy more US drones, I wonder if they would be big enough to handle this requirement with a slightly different fit out.
Watchkeeper was out of date tech before it was even delivered, so not sure how much of that 1b went into the actual hardware. Especially considering Ukraine is basically doing the same job with drones costing a few hundred.
Watch keep was typical British fuc*wit procurement, take a known, throughly understood and proven sytem, then redesign absolutely everything, turning it into a hype expensive bespoke piece of kit and delay it, then chuck it away!
For God’s sake OFF THE BLOODY SHELF this time…
Watchkeeper even….
Watchkeeper seems to have been on “Death Row” for years, how come it’s only now (well next year) that this program has started and It’ll take another 5 years ? Why does everything take 5 years ? (or 6 if you include the year before the start of the 5 year period).
I’d love to see a breakdown of all the expences.
I get the feeling many heads will roll “In times of Danger” (hope that phrase doesn’t confuse too many here again) just like in the 1930’s when things needed to happen quickly.
(Please note I have omitted any hint of humour in this post to avoid upsetting anyone who doesn’t like that sort of thing, at 1.30 am in the morning, whilst shit faced and grumpy).
Five years is the life of the programme not delivered date.. delivery date is 2026 essentials they are looking to procure a capacity for 5 years service with a budget of 130 million… it’s as all drones should be a limited life contract.
No rush then, just like every thing else, 6 years or so to get any thing. Mean while the Army looks more like the Antiques Road show, Regts with little or no kit, ever thing will be ok in 3 to 5 years so its fine there will be no wars before then i hope.
Tiny bit unfair as the M270 is current;
CH3 will be good;
Wheeled will also be good;
Sky Sabre is good but not enough units and too short range may well be fixed with ER – which might fit in the existing launchers and MR that won’t. That said the reloads are affordable in numbers that you certainly can’t get out of the A30 variants.
Oh i agree how many M270 A2s are in service with how much ammo? CH3 not yet in service, Boxer entering service, Ajax the same. Give it 2 years most of the above will be on line, hopefully still no Tracked SPG’s, no RCH 155, drone defence, Light gun replacement, proper Warrior replacement. 148 tanks hardly much to shout about is it with no reserves. Limit med range air defence no long rang air defence and no CIW’s for air/drone threats.
I agree.
All is not perfect but something that are good are in the works.
Some other things that could be very good can easily be added.
BTW I don’t think the solution to extending the range of Sky Sabre is a hulking great radar target but distributed sensors networked together. And ER adds terminal velocity within the existing range envelope and/or more range.
Sky Sabre was never ordered in numbers its not that great a system, but its ALL we have one Regt with part of it deployed in Fualklands, no air defence at any RAF base any where in the world, Dying to see what gets ordered at the end of the year, main point is our Army is too small, too weak to be much good, no reserves of vehicles or ammo, what you see is all there is, Two weeks of fighting and its finished.
Last test was out of ammo in 10 days but that was back when we had AS90, and 200 tanks, dread to see how its looks now.
@Martin
I disagree that Sky Sabre isn’t that good.
CAMM is a very good missile that is undergoing a lot of upgrades as it is core to RN fleet as well as army usage.
Others also buy into it such as the Italians and Poles and the Italians also have A30 land variants.
CAMM has massive development potential and is the right choice.
Skysaber fundamental problem is range. It will be able to take out the missiles fired but not the launch vehicles. Long range glide bombs are now the way to go and their range far exceeds skysaber. Without being able to take out the launch vehicles before it fires, will result in it being easily saturated.
As a mobile system that can be kept close to the front line it has some positives but saturating air defences is now the tactic being used by both Russia and Ukraine.
@Steve
I agree but CAMM isn’t meant to be a ground targeting system.
CAMM does have a to surface capability but it isn’t optimised for that tasking.
Other effectors would be used for the found targets. Possible smaller, lighter and cheaper drone launched missiles that have gravity on their side?
Relatively cheap as CAMM is there is a limit to the number of £150k missiles you can stockpile so the need for £15k missiles and even £1.5k missiles so that appropriate munitions can be used as the supply chain can backfill is pretty clear.
To take out a tank you need son of NLAWs on a quadcopter?
Now then let’s think🤔what country is using, developing and week by week improving the technology in them?
Russia?
In 5-6 years we might be talking about a completely different set of technologies than what is available now, 6 years is enough time for a complete development to manufacturing cycle and you can do it locally
So who is the new proposed kit for? The Army would struggle to get a Div together never mind a Corp!? Watchkeeper already provides what the spec is asking for and apart from spending vast amounts of money on ‘new kit’ that will provide little gain over what we have already if that will be the case.
We need something that can see what the ‘naughty folks’ are doing and send them a ‘message’ that goes ‘bang’ to show some actual effect.
5-6 years and another load of dosh wasted on those office wallers who never ever get their hands dirty.
Loads out there off th shelf that would come in a a fraction of the cost.
Money better spent on building getting another dozen F35A’s to start making a true Wing of them.
Lions lead and supported by Chimps is how the UK MOD is today……………………………………
The biggest problem is that none of the promised cash mountain is available for deployment.
So relatively tiny amounts are being spent over ridiculously long periods.
Five – six years might as well say as the headline ‘Army drone project kicked into the long grass’ this is something too Gucci if it takes that long and will be totally out of date. This is a 12-18 month project for motivated people.
Corp made me laugh also.
The ”conract’ is the period over which the systems will be made available and utilised by the military.
The procurement process itself will not cost #130m.
The article sets out a 1 year process for a 5 year supply, utilise and support arrangement.
High volume, secure data link, low cost facilitates a critical mass that allows continuous coverage. Nothing is 199% survivable
The language in the article is far from clear.
Can you point to a better source of info than the article?
“Army opens £130 million Tender for Watchkeeper replacement”.
Seems clear to me especially given the 5(6) years duration, £25 million per year sort of suggests no hardware ?
“It’s OK, I understand”.
I think Pete is right.
I recall DS Healey stating when he announced Watchkeeper was to go that a replacement would be sourced within a year, with the chosen contractor providing so many task lines ( I forget how many ) for use, much like the initial HERMES deployment in Helmand before we pissed a billion up the wall on Watchkeeper.
Its the language used that is telling. In Procurement Jargon its pretty clear that the intent is a 5 year ‘Contract’ not a 5 year ‘process’. given the increasingly consumable nature of such systems it would suggest the MOD would have a 5 year period during which it could call off Goods and Services from the Contract…at the end of which a new arrangement will be required or the Contract extended. What annoys me is the statement the Contract Value will be #130million (which is standard Public Procurement practice). Who knows what the Contract will be worth and how the market will respond. A statement of a budget provision of #!30m would be more appropriate.
Well, at least there are some well-proven options out there to choose!
Jump 20/T-20
Skylark 3
Thunder B-VTOL
SkyLane 510/700
Tekever AR5
Ukrspecsystems PD-2 from Ukraine and battle-proven with helping 90% HIMARS attacks💯
Shark – from the same company and used more than any other for attacks
To name a few!
I’d say get the PD-2 or Shark drones; battle proven in real combat and we could build them on licence here in the UK.
Hell, then we could even send some to Ukraine as aid; building them in numbers for ourselves and Ukraine will mean economy of scale and make the building more efficient, driving down the cost, meaning more units built for less cost.
So after countless trials, informed decisions and deeper understandings, they still haven’t a clue what they want. What a joke.
That is probably because they have yet another chance to get this right and as a result are loading every single requirement they can think of on this new project which of course will not be met -just like watchkeeper and the project before that. The Army must be so far behind in experience of this technology and how best to integrate it into their operations that they cannot define what they really need. Why not set up joint military and MOD procurement/ops team to analyse the top three contenders (in 3 months) which are currently in service with well-respected users (such as US, Australia, Sweeden) and have a short fly off and choose the one which comes on top and then just buy as many as affordable and change nothing. Changing nothing is vital and will probably overcome the root cause of our problems. This would at least get the Army up to speed on the latest technologies making them an “informed customer “with some up-to-date capability. Only then can they define better what they really need and you might find whatever they choose at first is ‘good enough’ for the next 5 -10 years.
Interesting- their current UAV just finished a one year war and performed extremely well , so I’m trying to understand is this a case of an Army with zero experience and knowledge that falls into cheap dreams after the perfect drone … with a very low budget