BAE Systems has been awarded a four-year framework agreement to supply artillery and armoured vehicle weapon system components for the UK Armed Forces, including support for the British Army’s 105mm Light Gun, according to the company.
The agreement was awarded by Babcock Land Defence on behalf of the Ministry of Defence and will cover the continued supply of components across the Light Gun and BAE Systems’ wider artillery portfolio. The work is intended to support availability of the systems already in service, with replacement parts and other components supplied over the duration of the framework.
The 105mm Light Gun remains in British Army service as a lightweight artillery system designed to be moved rapidly between positions and deployed by a range of transport aircraft and helicopters. Under the new arrangement, BAE Systems will continue supporting the weapon alongside components for other artillery and armoured vehicle weapon systems used by the Armed Forces.
Laurie Ellis, Managing Director at BAE Systems, said: “This agreement reflects the confidence placed in us as artillery experts and our commitment to supporting the British Army with world-class capability. We are incredibly proud of our heritage in artillery design, manufacture and support, and of the skilled people across our business who ensure these critical capabilities remain available where they are needed most.
“The Light Gun continues to demonstrate value through its mobility, reliability and battlefield effectiveness. We are committed to continuing our support for this important capability and the service members who rely on it.”
The framework follows further BAE Systems investment in artillery manufacturing in the UK, including work to restore domestic production capacity for British-designed 105mm and 155mm gun barrels at Sheffield. That programme is intended to rebuild production capability for artillery barrels in Britain while supporting current and future land systems.
What, all five of them! Okay, not quite, but why does the MOD have a jaundiced eye when it comes to the RA and its guns? For too long, this vital arm of the army has had to make do with relatively small fleets of guns and today all that can be placed into service is 14 Archers and around 100 light guns, and that’s it, until the Boxer-mounted vehicles arrive in a few years. I just hope the RA is not asked to go into battle before 2030 because it will be a mixed bag of kit that the troops will be asked to fight with.
Mixed? i do not think so. A British Field Army of WW2 had stronger artillery than all current British Army.
Basically, they weren’t required during the long sandbox campaigns, so the capability was simply allowed to wither on the vine, like everything else that wasn’t directly involved in keeping 10,000 personnel operational in Afghanistan.
As we have seen in Ukraine, indirect fires of all types are absolutely critical to modern warfare, but Labour won’t fund defence (2.4% simply maintains the current managed decline status), so there it is.
It’s 2.7% by next year. And the spring budget will layout the path to 3.5%. The Autumn budget will also add the missing 5bn from the Defence Equipment Plan.
Odd, I thought I had replied…
Its beyond bloody obvious that spending needs to be 3.5% right now, at a minimum.
Absolutely everyone knows that, a huge amount of capital investment is required to stop the rot and turn things around, thanks to 30 years of neglect.
2.7% / 5% missing from the budget, I will believe both when I see it Robert.
Layout the path towards 3.5%, political speak for doing precisely fu#k all, they simply fiddle while Rome burns and kick the can down the road.
There’s a vast Army of Pipsters to pay for after all, Labour top priority.
Well, we will see John. The money doesn’t grow on trees, and you might have noticed the debt is massive and growth is minimal. They have to layout how we will get to 3.5. We can’t stay at 2.7 until 2034 then go to 3.5 the following year. I see a lot of comments because people don’t like Labour. I have never voted for them. But most government department needs more money. Cutting welfare isn’t as easy as it sounds when a huge chunk of it is pensions and in work benefits. 298bn will be spent on defence over the next 4 years. Its hardly small change.
2.7% is only achieved by putting in the security budget in the calculation for the first time – not from new money.
As I said, John, a jaundiced eye.
Yep, a government that simply put, will do nothing.
The severely constrained budget basically means if we want to add a new capability, or requip an old one, somthing else has to go.
F35B arrives, Tornado GR4 goes without replacement etc, etc.
Well they got away with that for 30 years, but now there’s nothing left to sacrifice.
An Airforce that cant even muster 10 fast jet squadrons.
An Army that can’t put a ‘real’ fighting Division together, because it lacks the basic equipment to fight a peer enemy with.
A Navy with 5 frigates!!!!
That’s what we have been reduced to, its stark and really quite frightening, we literally have nothing to fight a serious war with!
And the obsession with simple numbers continues without any regard to the wider capability and how/why we work constantly with our NATO allies. 8 T26 and 5 T31s are in build and the 6 T45s are getting a major weapons upgrade. Still 2 Astues to enter service. And Dreadnought. The RAF of today would wipe the floor with the RAF of 1996 despite the big difference in aircraft numbers.
The obsession with numbers Robert!
Most interested in UK Defence are both justifiably horrified and utterly pissed off at the shambolic procurement process that prioritises feeding the MIC pork barrel over the Armed forces and the fact we are now dangerously under strength.
The Army, Navy and Airforce are all clearly under strength and in many cases poorly equipped for the task they face.
If you think are current capabilities are ok, then we have very different ideas of whats acceptable.
The money is in the system, the threat we face as a nation is every bit as serious as it was at the height of the Cold War, our Government have chosen not to invest in it, but to carry on spending vast sums on welfare.
11% and growing, on the welfare is frankly unsustainable.
2% of that needs to be redirected to defence ‘yesterday’.
The vast army of pipsters and NEETs need to be cut.
its really that simple, tough spending decisions need to made, but Labours ‘benefit bandit’ MPs will kick off and prevent anything that they regard as a threat to their jobs.
Boom.
The budget situation is not unique to the UK, as most European countries struggle to meet welfare and growing insecurity concerns. Maybe sharing more assets is the only sensible measure to ensure Europe can take the lion’s share of US NATO commitments. I’m not recommending an EU defence force but a geographical European alliance including the Scandinavian bloc. Basically, if you join the UK forces, that could result in being permanently assigned to another country. I can envisage this being appliqable to air forces and navies rather than squaddies.
Pretty much my thoughts as well. Hardly newsworthy. Another contract for BAE. Huzzah 🙄
Maybe you’d rather the French do it then..
RA gun park is 8in a pretty dire state. We do have the M270, but the upgrade/fleet expansion seems quite slow !!
I was definitely one of the ones who said the L118/9 105 had had its day, when used in a modern conflict against a peer enemy. But Ukraine has changed my opinion, somehow they have made it work. Even when faced with the now 20km no-mans land caused by the plethora of drones. Google (I know!) says Ukraine has received a total of 126 L118/9s. Of which they have lost less than 10 units according to what I can find. Ukraine has been so impressed with the system, that they are going to licence build them themselves. So perhaps having the 105 mounted on the rear of the Supacat HMT, is a good idea and one the RA could use.
How much does Babcock make out of the MoD as a middleman for placing such contracts? We didn’t used to pay an intermediary, as MoD civil servants did that. Money wasted?
Babcock took over the light gun contract from DSG, they were rebuilt and repaired at Stirling. Babcock closed the Stirling site, rationalisation of the foot print was done to cut costs. They lost most of the light gun experts and found out it was not an easy move it to Bovington and without the knowledge. One came down to lead the project, the management ways pissed him off and he made less than favourable social media posts which resulted in him being asked to leave. The refurbishment project became delayed by over a year and parts sourcing was vey slow even by Babcock standards. This is a typical case of advice from the shop floor being ignored by corporate management that always knows best.