The Ministry of Defence say that a logistics system critical to British military operations around the world will be supported under a new five-year, £460 million contract with Boeing Defence UK.

According to a news release:

Supporting the Ministry of Defence’s ongoing Modernising Defence Programme, this new contract will ensure all single services have access to a single technology-enabled system to support essential inventory services, covering everything from washers and bolts to replacement parts for nuclear missiles.”

The Ministry of Defence advise that around 300 jobs will be sustained at Boeing Defence UK’s Milton Keynes and Bristol sites, as well as a further 375 roles in the wider UK supply chain including IBM, Fujitsu, Sopra Steria and BAE Systems.

Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin said:

“This contract helps ensure our Armed Forces can rapidly deploy personnel and equipment on operations at home and abroad whenever required, maintaining their reputation as one of the finest fighting forces in the world.”

The contract enables the management of current a

nd future equipment through ongoing access to cutting-edge software applications that are maintained and updated in line with “the changing needs of Defence”. The Ministry of Defence also say that the £460 million contract is being delivered three months early and is expected to save £54 million over the five years.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
73 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ian M
Ian M
14 days ago

Even the “Blanket stackers” need technology nowadays!

JJ Smallpiece
JJ Smallpiece
14 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

Duvet stackers, if you don’t mind.

Ian M
Ian M
14 days ago
Reply to  JJ Smallpiece

😂

Tim
Tim
14 days ago
Reply to  JJ Smallpiece

RAF version!

Tommo
Tommo
14 days ago
Reply to  JJ Smallpiece

Fire retardant Duvets ,Stackers for those at sea if you don’t mind too

Tommo
Tommo
14 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

And let’s just see if Sir Kier Starmer has anything too say ?

Tom
Tom
13 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

About what exactly does Starmer have to do with this?

Tommo
Tommo
13 days ago
Reply to  Tom

Evening Tom news this morning on the good old Left inclined BBC , Mr Starmer had been speaking of how much the MOD has wasted in the last ten years he said about overspending on projects and time delays amounting too billions of taxpayers money on delays etc What he really meant was he could do a better job

Andrew Thorne
Andrew Thorne
13 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

This Tory is incompetent but Labour are a million times worse…Not much choice these days…You either have the Tories that seem to have taken a severe left wing turn in politics, or you have the extreme left Labour or you have the clueless morons which are the Lib Dums…Whar a choice for the average voter….three left wing parties…Thank god the reform party is starting to get its act together…

Tommo
Tommo
13 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

I’m so weary of the state of politics in the UK at this present time that as a New Year’s resolution I’m reinforcing the Cellar and prepping for WW3 it’s a toss up between the Bear or the Dragon who we pick on first with the numbties in power it will probably be the French Andrew

Spencer
Spencer
13 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

It the same everywhere. In Canada you get a choice of left, more left or soviet.

BB85
BB85
13 days ago
Reply to  Andrew Thorne

Yeah, incompetence in MOD procurement has been going on a lot longer than 10 years, the current shambles would have been the same under Labour and the Tories.
In some ways the anyone but BAE attitude in recent army selections was a hangover from the Labour managed Nimrod fiasco but lessons still should have been learned and Warrior cancelled 5 years ago. I have a feeling Ajax will be fixed but that fact it took so long to unearth suggest a lot of failures in project management.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
14 days ago

““This contract helps ensure our Armed Forces can rapidly deploy personnel and equipment on operations at home and abroad whenever required, maintaining their reputation as one of the finest fighting forces in the world.” Yes, and so would keeping our 14 Hercules. What will they do without enough aircraft, walk? Atlas, C17, Voyager, already a fine fleet, and have many commitments already. Look at the effort expended with the Kabul airlift. But lets reduce the air fleet anyway, reversing one of the positives to come from the ridiculous 2015 SDSR, while planning of being more forward deployed. How much would… Read more »

Steve
Steve
14 days ago

It is odd that the focus seems to be on going light and being able to deploy fast anywhere in the world, whilst at the same time they are cutting the ability to actually deliver it.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
14 days ago
Reply to  Steve

One can’t help but think this all seems to be about sending troops around to show the flag and do a sales job for ‘Global Britain’ while in reality having no real capacity to actually fight. They seem to be increasingly seen as a marketing department rather than an actual fighting force giving the illusion of something more significant to impress without actually having to back it up and no doubt hoping the myth is never truly tested in an actual war. In essence the only relevance to military matters I fear is to try to build relationships, supply services… Read more »

Steve
Steve
14 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

It does seem that way. The issue is it is only fouling our local newspapers. Does anyone really think our allies are reassured by us sending a token force, or that they don’t know what our full capability is, and same goes for our potential enemies. I guess fouling the general public is all this government cares about, they don’t care about the reality If you want to send a message you do it by a large show of force, which means less places at once. The carrier’s are good for this, assuming we can actually ensure enough escorts are… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
14 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

That’s a pretty good description of the Army right now.

Airborne
Airborne
13 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

Ahem….cough….And suddenly we have the “Ranger Brigade”…

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
14 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Yep! If anything ISTAR aircraft, helicopters and transport aircraft should be a growth area.

You could say Protector will take some ISTAR roles but no excuse for other cuts.

David Lloyd
David Lloyd
14 days ago

The answer is that the next round of defence cuts will disband the Para Regiment and the SAS. Because we wont have enough specialist air transport and we need a Space Command and Cyber Defence Agency instead

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
14 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

I Don’t think so, David.

There are areas of defence that are safe from cuts, from locations to units, and the SF and 16AA are two of them. Even if 16AA is altered or amalgamated, the fallout would be ridiculous.

The SAS are worth more to HMG than just their skill on the battlefield.

Money for the NCF and SPCom has already been allocated, and both the SAS and the Parachute Regiment are still here.

Last edited 14 days ago by Daniele Mandelli
Steve
Steve
14 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

SAS won’t be cut, because they are another part of the force that is shrouded in secrecy, meaning you can cut their expenditure / capability, whilst pretending your investing in them, without anyone knowing.

Additionally they allow the government to make vague statements about us sending special forces in to deal with issues without them actually needing to back this up with any evidence or results.

Last edited 14 days ago by Steve
Airborne
Airborne
13 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

Not sure if that’s a bit of a banter post but nope, SF and Reg aren’t going anywhere mate! In fact the Army is desperate to try and make similar, cheaper and less capable versions cough cough Rangers! So much cheaper than an IFV Bn!

Sean
Sean
13 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

🤣😂🤣😂

Best comedy post I’ve read on here!

Bob.
Bob.
14 days ago

Agreed. The decision to lose the Hercs is ridiculous. There are missions where the Herc is more appropriate than the larger A400.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
14 days ago
Reply to  Bob.

SF being the main customers…..

Robert Blay.
Robert Blay.
13 days ago

Hi mate. I guess we would still need these support contracts with or without the Hercules fleet. And nothing was due to replace Hercules from 2030 anyway. Just expanding Atlas roles/capability and availability. Hercules is still with us for another 3 years. On a positive note, retiring Hercules does release a considerable amount of funds and manning for the Atlas and C17 fleets. In a perfect world, I’d buy another 8 Atlas. But we both know that probably isn’t going to happen.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
13 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Hi mate. I knew you’d see the positives. It’s refreshing on here. You’re right with your points, and the contracts are needed. I’d still have kept the Hercs though, even if it meant losing something else. In this day and age I see them as that important.

I’m wondering what DSF has been bribed by to accept their loss.

klonkie
klonkie
13 days ago

H D

Re RB’s point on acquiring perhaps 8 A400. What if the RAF sourced used models from the Germans ,who are looking to sell off older early models?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
13 days ago
Reply to  klonkie

Morning K.

It is the obvious, often commented on possibility, yes.

Which we all know probably won’t happen.

klonkie
klonkie
13 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay.

Hi Robert The C130J could have been retained and upgrade with a SLEP beyond 2030. In terms of your point of redirecting c130 funding to the A400 and C17 , I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly) that they were already budgeted for?

I’m liking your idea of a further 8 A400. What if the RAF acquired used models from the Germans ,who are looking to sell off older early models?

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
13 days ago
Reply to  klonkie

Hi Klonkie. You are correct, the Atlas and C17 are budgeted for. But without Hercules to fund, the Atlas and C17 fleets might get some of that funding in the shape of additional crews, flying hours, more upgrades ect. The Atlas fleet will provide a considerable increase in capability over the Hercules. But we can’t get away from the fact we are loosing 14 airframes. Ex German aircraft could be an option. But the folks in operational requirements will decide if we need more airlift capacity in the future. Voyager can also carry a considerable amount of freight. Even with… Read more »

klonkie
klonkie
12 days ago
Reply to  Robert Blay

Hi Robert thanks fo the reply No doubt you’ll be pleased at the news yesterday that the RAF maybe accruing additional A400 airframes. Fingers crossed!

Robert Blay
Robert Blay
12 days ago
Reply to  klonkie

Yes, that’s a climmer of hope. 😀 I’ll try and not get to hopeful until we see something more official from the MOD. The current fleet of Atlas still has plenty of potential to unlock.

Challenger
Challenger
13 days ago

Weren’t the remaining Hercs part way through an upgrade when the u-turn around scrapping them was announced? The RAF may be miles ahead of the Army in terms of planning and procurement but even so it’s concerning that the raw numbers of aircraft will drop off a cliff during the next few years. The Hercules, tranche 1 Typhoon, Sentry, Sentinel, Hawk T1’s, Islander/Defender….sure a lot of these are older ‘legacy’ types that wouldn’t exactly be run on for decades more but we all know quantity has a quality of it’s own. To echo what others have said punching some gaping… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
13 days ago
Reply to  Challenger

Re Hercs upgrade, not sure. Herc and Typhoon cuts are reversals of 2015 SDSR rare bits of good news. Islander/ Defenders are a real stealth one, under the radar to many. Sentry/Sentinel hopefully mitigated by UAV, other types. Everyone knows my view on the Sentinel cut! Hawks. We have many more than we use, excluding the Reds examples and 4FTS T2s which remain. The aggressor / JFAC requirement still remains, so we have the RFI for contractor service. Would it not be cheaper just to keep some of the Hawks? I’m in agreement with quantity. I would like to see… Read more »

DP
DP
14 days ago

A bit off topic but can a Challenger tank fit inside a C17? If yes then could it fit in an A400? Just curious to understand how capable our transport fleet is in this respect?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
14 days ago
Reply to  DP

I’m trying to imaging a scenario where airlifting MBT’s made sense. I can’t really.

Ignoring the weight issue for now 🙂

If you are using an MBT you wouldn’t be flying transports close to contested areas?

Surely you use the Points with the tanks loaded on transports?

If it was totally non contested landings civvy ferries with the tanks on road transporters would be the fastest way to move them?

I’m no expert as this was never my area.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
14 days ago

Yes, if used they are in a number requiring sea lift, not in singles.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
14 days ago

I’m not sure what use a few odd tanks is other than in counter terrorism.

They were useful in Sandy places……

Anything else you really need 25+ to be of any real use…….

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
13 days ago

How are a few tanks useful in counter-terrorism?
25 tanks is a tiny force – less than 2 squadrons.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
13 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

In Helmand singular Challys we’re used to provide cover and or response. I’m sure someone who was there will correct me if I have got that wrong.

I agree 25 MBT is not a lot.

We were talking about air insertion of MBTs, in this thread. With 7(?) UK C17’s 25 is about the limit of what you could theoretically shift in a reasonable timescale. Assuming you put the ammunition and spares into A400’s or similar.

Steve M
Steve M
13 days ago

C-17 could lift a single MBT, A400 no chance

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
13 days ago
Reply to  Steve M

As I say MBT in the C17.

Spares and ammo in A400.

You need two Transports per MBT into the field.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
13 days ago

Quite a few years back on here someone suggested placing a Challenger at MPA to deal with any Argie landings, by parking on the runway!

So there you go! About the only single tank lift I can think of.😂

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
13 days ago

Haha

I remember that thread.

Might as well use anything big and heavy for that.

Oil tank filled with concrete would be as good?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
13 days ago

Pretty much!

But I enjoyed the image in my mind!

Ryan Brewis
Ryan Brewis
12 days ago

Challengers of Mount Pleasant. Sequel to the Fireflies of Port Stanley?

Steve
Steve
14 days ago

This is the biggest problem with the new structure of the armed forces. If they are designed to deploy fast, we have almost no fire support that can get there without sea links and therefore significant time.

We have the light artillery guns, Apache and thats about it. We need to acquire some lighter artillery / mobile fire platforms, to ensure any deployed force is capable of defending itself.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
14 days ago
Reply to  Steve

I would have thought that medium range missiles, in numbers, would offer the best capability?

If they are medium range they do t need to be close to the hot zone and so do t need heavy armour and are therefore lighter and numbers can. E loaded into an air transporter?

Of course that does mean MOD buying more than token numbers.

Maybe something that can be hung of the existing Giraffe radar/fire control systems that are already bought?

Ian M
Ian M
14 days ago

MLRS B1. GMLRS Unitary round has a current range of 65-85km with PSM on the way.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
13 days ago
Reply to  Steve

We have sent AFVs to fight in expeditionary campaigns overseas since 1916. We use ships for this, not aircraft. It has never previously been an isssue that sea travel is slower than air travel.

Steve
Steve
13 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

That’s the equiv of a world war 1 general saying we have always used horses, so why would we stop. The world has changed and so has the threats. The focus appears to be on forward deployment for faster mobility, which bringing in required gear by sea doesn’t achieve. It’s hard to judge where they are heading, but looking at the US approach, it seems the idea is to land a lightish force fast with the gear that is required to hold ground until the more heavy stuff arrives. The type of gear the US sent as part of the… Read more »

Daveyb
Daveyb
14 days ago
Reply to  DP

A Challenger 2 will not fit in a Hercules, it is too wide. Plus the floor wouldn’t be strong enough to support the weight. It will fit in an A400M but without the theatre entry standard armour fitted. But again at base weight (empty and unloaded) of 64t (64,000kg) the cabin floor properly cannot support it let alone take off. The C17 can carry a fully loaded and theatre entry standard single Challenger 2 (just!). See below: Challenger 2 dimensions as per Wiki: Length = 8.3 m (27 ft 3 in), 13.50 m (44 ft 3 in) with gun forward. Width = 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in), 4.2 m… Read more »

Last edited 14 days ago by Daveyb
David Lloyd
David Lloyd
14 days ago
Reply to  DP

They will fit but are too heavy, even for the A400. A400 weight empty is 70ton. Max takeoff weight is 171ton. A Challenger II is 75ton without ammo or fuel

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
13 days ago
Reply to  David Lloyd

You don’t shift MBTs by air – you can only fit one in to a C-17 and can’t use a A400M. We move massed armour by sea.

DanielMorgan
DanielMorgan
14 days ago
Reply to  DP

If the C-17 can handle an M1 Abrams it should be able to handle a Challenger.

peter wait
peter wait
14 days ago
Reply to  DP

Too heavy for A400 (37 t capacity), one would fit in C17 but weight would be in small area of cargo hold so might not be good for aircraft!

Monkey spanker
Monkey spanker
14 days ago
Reply to  DP

I don’t know about size wise but it weighs in at Over 70t’s! No chance in an A400. 3 A400 can lift 2 boxers with power packs taken out etc. Then put back together when the 3 aircraft reach the destination. All for 2 boxers. Then You need crew, fuel, armament, spares. IF challenger can fit in a C-17 physically it’s operating very close to max load so range is down and fuel consumption up. Then you need crew, fuel, shells, spares etc etc. Best for airborne is a CVRT kind of vehicle. Can fit multiple in 1 aircraft. I… Read more »

MikeB1947
MikeB1947
13 days ago
Reply to  DP

Don’t forget NATO does charter Ukrainian AN-124s for the movement of some outsize pieces of equipment.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
13 days ago
Reply to  DP

It really is a terrible idea to move MBTs in aircraft. You need to move MBTs and other supporting AFVs to an expeditionary theatre, en masse and that means by ship, as we have always done since 1916.
A C-17A could move one CR2/CR3. An A400M can only lift a 37 tonne payload, so could not lift a Chally.

Angus
Angus
14 days ago

Perhaps Boeing have a few spare transports hidden away for such a call for movement. The RAF is almost a spent force same as the ARMY. thank goodness we live on an island………RN and RM’s will do whats needed to keep you safe as they have always done…..

Tommy Gunner
Tommy Gunner
14 days ago
Reply to  Angus

And Army Commando elements thank you.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
13 days ago
Reply to  Angus

I did some sums on here during lockdown in a discussion with DM et Al. The RAF transport fleet is not much different from it Cold War peak in terms of kg/km that can be executed. Sure airframes are well down. But it takes a lot of Hercs to shift the contents of a C17 or A400. IRL for uncontested landings cargo 737/747 are very viable for shifting massive amounts of kit. There are a lot of cargo 737/747’s about in the west. We can always manage to delay iThingy shipments from China for a few months while they are… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
13 days ago

For me, it is their utility regards SF. I assume their DSF taskings do not involve great movements freight wise, for which an Atlas is better, but involve scenarios such as dropping off a troop here and there, some vehicles, quick insert or evac of people and SF kit, and so on. All this as often using remote strips, as seen with Herc/47 Combination for years. And of course any Air Troops work using parachute. For me, the Atlas fleet which does the bulk carrying better than Hercs must now regularly drop their many varied other taskings and take on… Read more »

Airborne
Airborne
13 days ago
Reply to  Angus

“As they have always done” same as the RAF and the Army, they have always done as well! The Army is in shit state but let’s not blow to much smoke up the RMs arse! They are only in a good way as the budget comes from the RN and the RN have got their shit together over the last 10 years. The RM are in a fortune position that while they are decent lads and have a great history, they are light role, and therefore both cheap to operate and fit into the “cheaper” way of operating our illustrious… Read more »

David Steeper
David Steeper
13 days ago
Reply to  Airborne

Yeah the Army Commandos don’t get the publicity but the RM would be in trouble in a real shooting war without them.

peter wait
peter wait
14 days ago

I think the MOD should have to publish if these contracts have actually saved the millions they claim by their end ?

Tom Keane
Tom Keane
14 days ago

Well excuse me … I always thought the Royal Logistics Corps were among the best of their type in the world?

Tommy Gunner
Tommy Gunner
13 days ago
Reply to  Tom Keane

Guess we are done playing lead soldiers. Cyber and electronic are the way forward. Digging into the frosty ground or the perils of and in the kit is a thing of the past.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
13 days ago
Reply to  Tom Keane

Tom, Is your point that the RLC drive HETs?

Tom Keane
Tom Keane
12 days ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

I was merely mentioning the fact that the Royal Logistical Corps excel at what they do. I assume that Boeing will be supplying the aircraft, in order to enable RLC to expedite their tasks even quicker?

Paul Kendall
Paul Kendall
12 days ago

It’s odd that this story is tagged as ‘air’. Surely logistics is a joint activity? Could it be just because the contract went to Boeing? They are much more than an aerospace company nowadays.