The Ministry of Defence has awarded a £125 million framework contract to Cook Defence Systems (CDS) for the supply of heavy armoured vehicle tracks and associated items.
The deal, announced on 27 June 2025, covers a two-year period with an optional one-year extension.
The contract was issued by the Defence Equipment & Support Land Equipment Vehicle Support Team (VST), based in Telford. CDS, headquartered in Stanhope, is the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) and Design Authority (DA) for the tracks in question. As such, it holds the technical knowledge necessary to design, support, and maintain the equipment across the UK’s Armoured Fighting Vehicle (AFV) fleet.
According to the published justification, the award was made without prior publication of a contract notice under regulation 16 of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011. The MoD cited technical necessity and operational risk as the basis for the direct award, explaining that only CDS is able to supply compatible track systems without compromising platform safety or increasing logistical burdens.
The Ministry stated that procuring alternative track components from another supplier would create “a disproportionate cost and significant logistical and technical burden” on front line units. It also warned of potential risks if track types were mixed within the same fleet, including invalidating safety certifications and complicating maintenance and training requirements.
Babcock Land Defence Ltd is acting as the procurement agent on behalf of the MoD for this contract.
Cook Defence Systems is a long-standing supplier of track systems for British Army vehicles and has provided track technology for platforms such as Challenger, Warrior and Ajax. The company is the UK’s only specialist manufacturer of tank tracks and is a key supplier to several NATO nations.
Just need some armoured vehicles to use them now…
They would be the associated items 😂
Better make tracks then!
That’s a lot of money for two tracks!
Should be rubber
It is on some vehicles but I don’t know why it isn’t on all of them I also wonder if metal tracks also provide a little bit on mine protection as well , I would be interested in hearing from anyone who knows why some are rubber and some not and or if metal tracks help with mine strikes
The basic trade off is Rubber tracks are more forgiving on roads, but don’t give the same traction off road, and much harder to repair than metal tracks. You can get most of the benefits of rubber tracks by giving metal tracks rubber inserts that can be removed for off roading or war time use.
Why do they remove the rubber for off-road?
Basically if you remove the rubber you get better grip from the track (you either remove the rubber pad and the track is then designed to give more grip, or you replace the rubber pad with steel cleats that give more grip). So off road the track “bites” more and gives you more mobility. The downside is running a tank like that *destroys* road surfaces, so during peace time virtually no army will run their tanks without rubber track pads.
The Soucy band tracks that are now being fitted to the CV90 Mk4, have an upper weight limit of 45t. They’re aren’t strong enough to support more weight. Though I bet Soucy is working at increasing the load limit.
These tracks were trialed on Norwegian CV90s during Afghan. They definitely had two vehicles with the band racks fitted, maybe a third. They did suffer from a number of IED attacks. I knew about two attacks, where one was worse than the other. None of the crews were injured in the attacks. The smaller attack the crew used a quick repair kit and they were on their way in less than a hour. The second was a bit worse as the track was shredded, also a road wheel had been blown off. However the crew had spare band tracks, so just replaced it and ran the tank minus the road wheel. I can’t remember how long it took them. But they didn’t need engineer support to do it.
I have been wondering why the Ajax vehicles aren’t using these tracks. It saves on weight, makes the vehicle significantly quieter inside and out. Plus gives a much smoother ride. The trials in Afghan showed the tracks performed better than expected.
Grinch, I think few, if any, AFVs over 40 tonnes have rubber tracks. Probably because the structural strength needs to be higher.
Whilst this is great news, one wonders how many hops and how much paperwork, they needed to complete to get the follow on contract.
One hopes that DE&S are getting smarter, and just looking for “value for money” in regards to the contract, rather than making Cook Defence providing all the nugatory paperwork in regards to processes and policies, that haven’t changed since their previous contract.
Probably none or at least very little. The fraework should specifiy all the key contract details plus the basis for charging etc.
All that would need to be done in essence is issue a purchase order for say 20 sets to a particular specification ie for a challenger 3 and specify the predetermined price and then expect dilivery and an invoice.
Back in the late 90s, the Mobility Section within the Infantary Trials and Development Unit (ITDU) based at Warminster conducted trials on the Warior track pad retention system in order minimise the amount of servicable tracks being written off due to the acumilation of debris building up and solidifying over the track pad retention nut within its housing. Crews were finding it to be a laborious and a time consuming task to remove the concrete like compressed material covering the pad nuts to fit new pads thus extending the life of the tracks. One systems triled comprised of two coiled sprung retention pins driven and released from the sides of each track link which cancelled out the track pad nut system altogether. I’m not aware of the outcome of this partiqular trial, has anyone got any information on it?
The Roll pin tracks had a tendency to shed pads, on one mdmorable occasion i was commanding a vehicle out of ATDU workshop, with the new track, and we left a steady trail of shed pads all down the road.
While funny, it rapidly eroded enthusiasm for the system.
However the cementation of the track pad nuts WAS addressed by GKND once. Replacing the bolt on pads with Huck bolts (where a steel pin engages through the pad and link, and is secured by a swaged on collar) proved suprisingly effdctive. The collar was removdd by a chisel, with a trio of sharp edges around a central hole. The chisdl was driven eithrr by Hammers, Big 1 off, or an air chisel. The chisel could be centred on the track pad pin, the 3 edges removed all the concretion as it cut ofv ghe collar. It was very simple, the track padx no longer required torque checking or tightening..the collars were fitted a pneumatic tool, repadding of a full track was an hours work for 1 man, once the track was dropped. It only needed a second man to help roll the track after the pads were detached, so the old pads could be cleared away. We ran our demo vehicle on sample wraps till the pads wore out, no loosening.
However the big money was on totally new track, so cost szvings were not popular. Sad
O/T but this was posted on armyrecognition web site today.
“According to information published by defense analyst Nicholas Drummond on June 30, 2025, the British Army is reportedly implementing a strategic reorganization of its core combat forces, aimed at significantly enhancing battlefield survivability, lethality, and operational flexibility. Under this emerging structure, the 3rd (UK) Division is set to evolve into a fully tracked maneuver formation, incorporating the latest Challenger 3 Main Battle Tanks (MBT) and the Ajax family of reconnaissance vehicles. In parallel, the Ares variant of the Ajax family will be repurposed into a heavy Armored Personnel Carrier (APC) to replace the long-serving Warrior IFV. Meanwhile, the 1st (UK) Division will be transformed into an all-wheeled expeditionary force structured around the Boxer 8×8 armored vehicle”