The full contract notice for the Ministry of Defence’s New Medium Helicopter programme has been published, revealing further details of the GBP 989 million deal signed with Leonardo UK in March.
The contract, which was formally concluded on 23 March 2026 and published on the Find a Tender service on 10 April, covers the procurement of 23 helicopters to replace existing rotorcraft for Army and Strategic Commands over a 91-month period.
Beyond the aircraft themselves, the notice sets out the full scope of what Leonardo will deliver under the deal. The contract includes design organisation integration services for government-furnished assets and mission role equipment, two flight simulation training devices for aircrew and rear crew at the UK Main Operating Base at RAF Benson in Oxfordshire, and training courses for qualified helicopter instructors, aircrew, and groundcrew maintainers. Courseware material for ongoing aircrew and maintainer training is also included.
The contract further covers an initial in-service support package, the details of which give a sense of the programme’s scale. This comprises initial provisioning spares, deployed support packages, ground support equipment and specialist tooling, technical publications and aircrew publications, logistics and spares management, forward and depth maintenance, and design organisation modifications and technical support.
The notice describes the NMH as a “common medium lift multi-role helicopter, fitted for, but not with, specialist Mission Role Equipment” that will be “able to operate in all environments in support of defence tasks.” The “fitted for but not with” designation means the aircraft will be designed and wired to accept mission-specific equipment but will not carry it as standard, allowing different configurations to be fitted depending on the operational requirement.
The procurement was conducted through a competitive procedure with negotiation, though only one tender was received, from Leonardo UK based at its Yeovil facility on Lysander Road. The evaluation process used a combination of pass/fail criteria and weighted scoring. Mandatory pass/fail gates included compliance with air system requirements, simulator system requirements, quality management systems, and cyber security and resilience assurance for what was classified as a high cyber risk profile.
Beyond those mandatory thresholds, bids were scored against weighted criteria. Technical merit carried the heaviest weighting at 40%, followed by support at 17%, UK industrial contribution at 15%, social value at 10%, commercial considerations at 10%, and time and delivery confidence at 8%.
One of the MoDs favourite phrases “fitted for, but not with”
Fuck sakes… It’s because they haven’t got the kit to fit to is anyway.
Read it properly
I did. They’ve not got anything to fit, so they fit a word salad.
In this circumstance for a general utility helicopter fitted for but not with makes lots of sense.
but if this is a utility helicopter, what platform gets used in war zones? Do we have a fleet of armoured units?
Didnt we have to retro fit all the helicopters in Afghanistan because none of them had armour and were taking fire?
These will be doing exactly the same role as the Puma before it. So doing both Green and Black tasking and roled to the specific requirement, which if in a high threat area from small arms will include additional armour. Though I’ve not seen anything yet on what defensive aid systems (DAS) will be fitted to the aircraft.
Because as the article says they will be fitted for but not with.
The brochure pdf for Leonardo Miysis has an AW149 on the cover, so I’d assume that?
That’s my point though the US has armour and weapons to add when required.
We usually send them without (puma chinook Land Rover) then when people die buy an UOR and add later.
Should these not be ready for a shooting war as we won’t get advance notice in a Ukraine type situation
The Chinook initially used 10mm armoured steel plate. But due to the weight it couldn’t be fitted to the whole of the cabin. This was replaced with a ceramic armour. Which was a lot lighter, so covered the cockpit/cabin floor and sides. But was also more effective as it could stop a 12.7mm AP round. Though needed replacing after being hit. It has always had the M134 7.62mm minigun and the 7.62mm M60. The new ER buy (pseudo MH487Gs) will have the option of fitting additional M240s to the rear cabin window. The Puma was always the poor cousin to the Chinook in RAF service, as the Chinook aways got first dibs on any money for modifications.
Thanks your very knowledgable on the issue.
I’m fine with it not being fitted on day to day. Surely a stock of Kevlar plates and weapon mounts can’t cost that much when the program is a billion.
What do we do if it kicks off unexpectedly? Don’t think it’s gunna be like the old days where we see an obvious build up
Can’t cost much, oh Andy, believe me, it will after Leonardo have
fiished with it…
‘Sir will need a bespoke package, step this way and sign the contract ‘.
Design, testing, certification, regular update meetings in a 5 star hotel in Florence, all these things cost money, a lot of money.
Think of a ridiculous cost and how long it would take to implement, then tripple both.
The MIC pork barrel won’t feed itself you know…
Preparing for war (Starmer’s claim) doesn’t scream fitted for but not with. It screams penny pinching – trading soldiers lives for Treasury cash.
Why burden the platform with the extra weight and increase fuel consumption by flying around with the extra armour fitted when not in hostile environment ?
The counter to that is the aircrew need to train with the extra weight, as the highest stress scenarios it will be needed and that isn’t the time to be second thinking everything due to extra weight impacting how the thing flies.
So you can train for both can’t you? Loaded to the max and empty,just as they will train with troops and without!
Training is just that train for ALL contingencies.
True.
My concern is whether they have actually brought the armour. It was clear they hadnt for the merlin and Puma when they were needed and had to be rapidly procured.
Exactly my point, people die then it’s an UOR
Yes but they dons seem to be buying the armour and weapons. Meaning it won’t be available when the guys get sent at short notice like always happens
fitted for but not with that phrase really pisses me off
I thought the requirement was for about double that number?
The requirement turned out to be whatever number could fit under a billion pounds.
Yep cut by about half
This the problem by manufacturing a short run in the UK the prices are forced right up so the numbers bought…..
And yet only 15% will be UK industrial inputz does that mean they will just be bolting and already build airframe together in the UK and pretending it’s UK built?
I believe that was just the weighting for bid scoring, not the actual industrial split
There will of course be components sourced from various places but I’m pretty sure all AW149/AW189 gearboxes & rotors are built from scratch and rig-tested at Yeovil. So it’s not just a FAL by any stretch, there will be a decent level of UK content by value, and it’s keeping high-end specialisms in the UK.
The original plan to replace multiple types with a single type got changed. We adopted a cheaper ‘horses for courses’ strategy, bought 6 H145s and are keeping the 6 Dauphins for SFO. The 23 AW149s are direct 1 for 1 replacements for just the Pumas. Total comes to 35, a tad fewer than the original plan I think, but not bad.
Yes but the 6 Dauphin already existed, so cannot go to the “up to 44” total first mooted.
So Griffon and Bells were replaced by HC145.
24 Puma by 23 of these.
That Puma numbered 41 ( I think originally ) certainly in the middle 30s is what should be taken as the baseline, not a 24 bare minimum Puma which were updated at great expense.
It’s another cut whichever way you dress it, but, considering the wider paralysis in defence procurement, we shall take it!
I thought it was 36-44? Never going to get 44 for £1bn, but 36 isn’t far off if this only replaces Puma, as there are 6 new HC145 Jupiters replacing helps in the NMH scope and 5 Dauphins still in service. That totals 34.
No mention of the Treasury “profiling” of funding to spread the cost of the program for as long as possible while a) pushing up the final bill and b) denying the capability to the UK’s troops.
Of course not.
The procurement of these helicopters has been a mess from the start. The starting point was not enough helicopters of the right size for the role in Afghanistan/Iraq and we end up with less airframes. 10/10 for learning lessons.
All about industry remember, I’ve had that pointed out to me enough times here, so, fair enough, I’m past debating it.
The military need is secondary, so we are where we are.
Wow, a whole 23 helicopters! Britain’s back! The reason for this contract is Leonardo were threatening to shut shop in the UK and walk. It keeps the lights on, for now. The UK’s defense contract policy is industrial based, not on defense requirements.
Been saying that for Eons, and will continue to do so.
‘Fitted for, but never with’
Sad news is this is not a military ready helicopter, any slight exceedance, and you are grounded for days. Yeovil is a smoke screen….the aircraft will be assembled in the uk, majority of parts are made in Italy and Poland these days! This procurement is a farce and should be reviewed, just ask the civil operators of the AW189 and look at how long they are on maintenance for.
The whole thing is an expensive waste of time to keep the unions happy. The blackhawk can do the same job at the fraction of the price. Its the NH90 all over again.
Apparently not, new build BH are more expensive than I thought.
No development costs or risks with off the shelf equipment.The cost of 23 new build UH60s come in at under £400 million
Difficult to tell if you are comparing like for like…. Does that price include the support packages, simulators, initial spares and engineering training etc?
What if you want to add an extra / different mission system, maybe a different radio? As soon as you go away from pure off the shelf cost goes up rapidly.
Also uk didnt buy nh90
Well yes, I always supported an OHS BH buy and in many ways I still do, a subject long done to death here. But, I take the industrial benefits that posters have often stressed to me. I still remember the 50-60 BH we were offered for around that amount 15-20 years back and we went Wildcat for 1 Billion plus and upgraded Puma instead.
Value for money for the military? No, we could have saved a lot and bought a few extra transport aircraft instead with the saving?
For UK industry, in the money again. “Sovereign” insofar as we build them, yes. I’d have happily had BH built here as well.
On the 23 for that amount, Jonathan may have something to say about that, he quoted figures far higher.
No idea of which is most accurate, I just want the military to have the kit they want and the numbers required.
As always, they don’t and it is industry that takes prominence.
And then people grumble about numbers….what will it be, we seemingly cannot have both?
Quick google suggests sweden and austria spent about 1bn dollars on 12 h-60s in 2024 which is not cheap (again not clear what this includes) and probably similar in cost to nmh without the industry benefit. Without knowing the details it is hard to comment with confidence….
Agreed.
UK can buy UH-60’s direct via FMS at mates rates –
7 yrs and 7 months to deliver 23 helicopters is just ridiculous and probably a contributing factor to the cost of each.
we should be banging out at least 8 per year – probably 16 to get some economies of scale, not 3
everything that is wrong with MOD in one contract
initial requirement was for 44
Took 3+ years to get to contract
Defence inflation is at least 10% pa so we end up with 23
then spread the order over 7 1/2 yrs
all whilst the current fleet is decommissioned having had at least 2 LEPs
have I missed anything!?!?!!
The NMH was supposed to be an interim solution, where I think they really want the US Army’s MV75, due to its speed and range advantage over helicopters. But I feel the AW149 will be with us for quite some time, unless the MOD have already earmarked the funds.
Fitted for but not with yet again…..seems to be they key factor in any defence purchase these days! No wonder our armed forces are on their knees.
Twelve years for 23 helicopters. It’s a wonder we get anything done.