The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has issued a Voluntary Transparency Notice (VTN) regarding its intention to award a £58 million contract to BAE Systems Bofors AB for the long-term in-service support of the Archer Artillery System.
According to the notice, the contract will ensure maintenance, repair, training, and configuration management for the system, which forms part of the Interim 155 Capability Project.
The MoD, via the notice, confirmed that BAE Systems Bofors AB—the original designer and sole manufacturer of the Archer system—will be the only supplier capable of fulfilling the contract due to its ownership of the essential design, technology, and specialist tooling required for ongoing support.
The contract is expected to be formally awarded by Q2 2026 and will run for seven years, with two additional one-year renewal options.
The Archer Artillery System is a highly mobile, self-propelled 155mm howitzer, providing rapid-fire capability and advanced long-range precision strike for British troops.
According to the MoD transparency notice, no alternative suppliers could be considered because:
- BAE Systems Bofors AB is the only company with the technical knowledge, design expertise, and specialist equipment required.
- The MoD lacks the rights to share critical technical data with third-party suppliers.
- Any re-design, repair, or modification work must be undertaken by the original manufacturer to ensure safety and performance standards are maintained.
Scope of the Contract
The in-service support agreement will cover:
- Technical design modifications and system upgrades.
- Maintenance and repairs to keep the system operational.
- Obsolescence management to ensure key components remain available.
- Specialist training for UK military personnel on system operation and maintenance.
This contract is a critical step in the UK’s efforts to sustain and enhance its artillery firepower, ensuring the Archer system remains combat-ready in the years ahead.
With BAE Systems Bofors AB as the design authority, the MoD has opted for a direct contract award to guarantee that the necessary technical expertise, proprietary knowledge, and spare parts remain available for British forces.
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!
14 guns bought for an interim capability and it cost £58 million to maintain them?
Barmy. £4 million plus per gun? Perhaps it’s management time for the MOD….
Unfortunately, these days there will be a lot of stock control, maintenance manuals and mods management systems to be put in place for such a complicated system (e.g. autoloader / targeting systems, etc.). The overhead for the software would have a minimum cost regardless of how small the actual force is. Buying really small numbers is always more expensive, even second hand. I would also note that these support contracts often include training elements at least for the army instructors’ and courses As Jonathan says they should just buy the Archer system, but Sunak apparently ordered the Boxer SPG system… Read more »
The MoD ordered the RCH155 because it should be a better system than Archer
• it can fire while on the move, which is obviously better than shoot and scoot
• it’s capable of direct-fire
• only needs a crew of 2
Plus they will be part built in the U.K., thanks to the existing Boxer production line.
-Fire on the move is more of a party trick than a really useful capability for artillery due to the speed time distance constraints of counter battery fire.
-There’s a reason why most artillery systems are generally build without much consideration to direct fires. They shouldn’t be occupying a space on the battlefield for direct fires.
-A crew of 2 means fewer people to man coms, fix the vehicle, or stag on the the battery’s position, unless you increase the number of support personnel.
I thought the standard compliment for Archer was three; i.e. driver, operator and commander. Though Saab have said it can be used by two if required.
@DaveyB correct, 3 for Archer, 2 for Boxer 155 apparently.
I believe it was the last PM who ordered the Boxer system
Correct he’s was an expert on Artillery platforms 🙄 🤔
Let’s not forget what the RA, REME and the MoD Equipment Support Manager do as well!
To be honest I honestly don’t know why the army does not simply order Archer for its new artillery system, I imagine they could get the systems pretty quickly.
Nothing to do with the army. Rishi Sunak torpedoed the army’s selection process and decided on Boxer RCH -155, because he was of course an artillery expert!!!
Sadly I suspect that’s the fallout of Ajax, people saying “The army is shit at procurement” and a Politician taking things into their own hands because they don’t trust the MoD.
Either that or the industrial strategy advantages where so great that he didn’t care about the needs of the army.
Dern, it was largely naked politics/commerce. Sunak wanted to show his ‘European credentials’ by cutting a deal with Chancellor Scholz on 23/4/2024 ‘to deepen our defence and security cooperation’. In their talks Scholz formally announced that German companies announce investments into the UK of more than £8 billion. Sunak felt he had to have something to put on the table. Details of German companies investing in UK, announced that day: 1. RWE (Energy Investment) to investing a further €8 billion in the UK by the end of this decade. 2. E.ON (Energy Investment) E.ON will continue their track record of… Read more »
Personally I think we would of been better off with Archer has it was built has a Artillery platform from the start. Do think the Boxer is more of a make do ,hopefully I’m wrong.
The RCH gun module is vehicle agnostic. It could be fitted to a MAN truck for example. Apart from its firing on the move “advantage”, the main difference is that it can hold more shells in the magazine than Archer. Similar the gun/magazine module of Archer is also vehicle agnostic, in theory you could quite easily fit it to a Boxer chassis.
Archer is good it’s tested so I don’t know why we don’t buy it and equip our artillery with it and it’s time infantry battalions moved up to 120mm mortars the boxer mortar system would fit in well
It’s good and tested, .that’s why we don’t order it. We don’t do good and tested. We prefer exquisite and untested so we can look surprised when the programme is late and vastly over budget.
The army of course were to evaluate a range of options to replace AS-90 but Sunak decided instead to buy Boxer RCH-155 as the long term replacement.
My understandinf is that they are yet to buy or commit to anything. They have invested in research. Whether that will materialise into an actual order, time will tell.
Steve, you are right. The Apr 24 announcement was about further joint development of Boxer RCH-155 by UK and GE. It would be a waste of time and a national embarrassment if we did not place an order!
It would be embarrassing, but equally won’t be the first time and no doubt won’t be the last time that huge amount of money has been invested in something that never happened.
Looking at what Germany is acquiring. They are purchasing a number of Patria 6×6 to replace their Fuchs as part of the common armoured vehicle system (CAVS) with a number of other Countries. Some of them will be fitted with the NEMO 120mm mortar system. The NEMA is a automated gun-mortar, that can be used in both the indirect and direct fire roles. This system is the one I would be advocating for the Army as their 120 mortar solution. Fitted to a potential buy of UK Patria 6x6s or as a Boxer module.
Is there any way for HMG to find out how much other nations pay for their contracts? I know there are different costs for numbers, etc., but they could get a mean figure per unit. It will tell them if BAE is overcharging.
Sadly not really. There are the total prices of other contracts out there, but usually there’s very little info on what exactly is included in the contract so it’s really hard to make comparisons.
Seems rather excessive for 14 guns.
We should not forget that classically: the gunners would do Level 1 maintenance which includes, but is not limited to servicing; that REME do Level 2 and Level 3 maintenance, equipment recovery, metal bashing and fitting of mod kits; the MoD Equipment Support Manager does a lot and I am happy to explain that to anyone interested.
Glad to see my taxes well spent (sarc) again.
The contract notice states it runs for 7 years. A short term interim contract for 9 months cost £4.8 m. Seems very expensive for 14 systems.
So not very interim then?
Gives an idea how long the RA will have virtually no 155mm artillery.
Or, that it mat remain in service when RCH155 arrives?
RCH155 is supposed to be in service this decade but like Boxer, production is likely to be slow. So a 7 tear contract for Archer may make sense. I can’t see us keeping them once RCH reaches FOC
Year
Ukraine has just accepted their first Boxer RCH155. Though it and a number of others will initially be used for training in Germany. I’m guessing their 54 RCHs will have the priority on the German production line. However, the question remains, will the UK be building the RCH or importing it?
Peter, True. We never keep kit once it has been superseded.
Bloody ridiculous.
Perhaps the army should buy a lot more and achieve some kind of economy of scale. Seems silly to pay such a lot for not a lot.
The Swedes only had 14 to spare.
I am not sure this will even create UK jobs, no in meaningful numbers anyway