A £129 million initial contract has been awarded by the Ministry Of Defence to deliver drones to the Armed Forces, of which 99 Stalker and 15 Indago models will be used by the British Army.
The Mini Uncrewed Air Systems (MUAS), produced by Lockheed Martin, will be used by British Army and Strategic Command for Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) on the front line and deep into enemy territory.
According to a news release, the portable drone will be the Stalker, an operationally proven small, near-silent drone, that provides unprecedented long-endurance imaging capability in a variety of contested environments and is in use by Special Forces around the world. It weighs less than 20kg.
The packable drone – small enough to be carried in a backpack – is the Indago, which weighs less than 8kg and can be deployed in approximately two minutes.
“The project, signed with Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S), will solve the capability gap of previous DH3 and RAGGLE operational service drone schemes as well as enable the rapid advance of capabilities to react to demands and allow Lockheed Martin to scan the market for new technology.”
Brigadier Pete Drew, the Army’s Senior Responsible Owner for the programme, named TIQUILA, to deliver MUAS capability, was quoted as saying:
“TIQUILA will bring the next generation of remotely piloted air systems into service in the Army. It marks a significant milestone for the Land ISTAR programme, with TIQUILA being the first sensor to be integrated into the wider ISTAR system. It will speed up decision making and will make us more lethal, responsive and resilient as a force, underlining the Army’s commitment to delivering Future Soldier as set out in the integrated review.”
Delivery of the drones will start in March 2023 and full operational capability for four Future Soldier Batterys will be realised in 2026, you can read more on this here.
This can’t be right, where is the multi billion pound decade long contract to f**k around with Off the shelf solutions to give us the proper bespoke Gucci capability the army really needs 10 years too late
The British Army has a long tradition of this including Phoenix and Watchkeeper and I think it’s important we respect that legacy.
You can just go out and buy stuff with out at least a proper four letter abbreviation for it. 😀
They were right about speeding up decision making then.
I think it’s a little ironic our previous long drawn out committee driven process has actually enforced these sudden decisive decisions to be made. The crony prospective committee members will be so up in arms however about having their income actually spent on kit for the forces. Geez they might have to actually work for a living.
that’s the funniest thing I have heard in years… top marks Jim
Jim it is actually a decade long contract, other sites in the US are saying the total over 10 years is 159 indigos 4 drones ( rotor) and 105 stalker VXE30 fixed wing drones. So it may be the numbers quotes by the army are what will be operationally available vs the total contract numbers ( I can’t imaging they have a long life).
The MOD quoted the bigger numbers in an announcement on Friday.
All are to be operational by the end of 2024. Presumably the rest won’t be used by the Army.
I can’t even find a spec for the Indigo 4s. The currently advertised one is Indigo 3. An article priced older Indigos at $25,000, which is what they look like. Broadly the same as the British Sky Mantis at about £20,000.
I did see an article probably on the LM website about the update to version 4 with increased aground performance. Think it’s in progress. I also read ( from the MoD I think) how this was a great success for British Industry though no explanation as to quite how.
Over £1 million per drone then? Meanwhile in Ukraine they are using civilian ones costing from £500 > £5000 with incredible results.
Genuine question but am I missing something here regarding the capability these new drones offer? Is the loiter time much greater or something vs standard off the shelf drone?
I imagine the video/datalink etc are much improved but over £1 million seems crazy for a man portable drone.
Hi see my post, there are reports the total order is for 264 drones.
Ukrainian sources I read pretty much said that a drone’s expected life cycle is 5 missions and thus it was impossible to simply rely on Military standard drones and thus drones of every kind are being sought with many larger ones being checked, upgraded and/or updated for specific military roles. I suspect we would go the same way in a conflict with military standard ones being used as selectively as possible. Resistance to interference will be more vital in some environments than others.
While Ukraine’s use of drones is remarkable and great, they don’t last long. Not to mention the security concerns if they are Chinese-made (no matter how DJI protest, they are at the beck and call of Xinnie the Pooh).
Ukraine make do.
Anyone else feel there has been a serious proliferation of UAV projects for the British Armed Forces which seems to either lead to demonstrators that don’t go anywhere or a classic overlap of similar roles being fulfilled by similar systems all operating in their own silo’s of development and use?
I suppose this is at least a decision given the urgency of the problem. However, could someone please explain to me how once again the UK has decided to withdraw itself from one of the key critical strategic capabilities for the 21st Century?
Is it lack of funding and risk adversion preventing UK companies developing such, or is it a lack or foresight/strategic thought from civil servants and politicians.
I’m in the civil drone business and can see lots of American, Chinese, French, Estonian, Swiss etc. involvement – but very little UK effort.
Sadly our nation is fixated with the idea of the service industry economy, actual high quality hi tec manufacturing is just not something that’s been supported and in reality the sad truth is the Army needed this order and we could not really wait for our own industrial capabilities to catch up, also it’s really a small niche order that would not sustain an industrial base. From a defence point of view, I think the industrial strategy needs to focus on the industry and defence manufacturing we still have: 1) complex warships 2) nuclear submarine 3) rotor 4) fix wing… Read more »
..very true, very sad. Agreed. Missed opportunity like so many others. I’m off to flip some burgers….
The U.K. is the 11th largest manufacturing economy by value. We build really high-etc, high-value items, rather than cheap low cost things like washing machines.
Hi Sean, indeed, but and this is big you need to have a balanced economy of high and low tec manufacturing. The high tec is still dependent on metal bashing manufacturering. you need to be good at all ends of the manufacturing spectrum. After all most of the population need low end manufactured products more than high end tec and that means money leaves. Also not everyone can be employed in high end manufacturing, for a stable society you need well paid wealth producing jobs for all abilities in you society, otherwise you end up with an underclass that is… Read more »
Here, here.
Our economy has low-end manufacturing too, it comes down to a case by case basis whether it makes more financial sense for a component to be made in the U.K. or not. Now obviously that is just a company looking at its bottom line, rather than considering national resilience or strategic imperatives. However, given the sheer complexity of the modern world, no country can be completely independent of others. From mining materials, refining them, then using them to make parts, to then combining the parts in machinery, you’re looking at dozens of countries being involved. Re your cooker, why were… Read more »
Ye to all of that but in the end to ensure you have a stable state you really need a few things in place structurally: 1) a positive or at least neutral balance of trade, and our balance of trade has been in a negative figure since 1997. Whatever else a Nation cannot indefinitely spend more wealth than it produces. 2) you have to secure that which is strategically important (in both manufacturing and resources) If your nation cannot do without it you must ensure the have supplies that “Cannot be held at risk”. All major powers wars have been… Read more »
1) Yes any nation should strive for a negative balance of trade, though obviously not attainable by all. But trade covers both goods and services, the U.K. makes a fortunate selling its professional services globally. 2) Well we can’t without going to war against nations who are currently allied with us. As regards to things like rare-metals, the Chinese already dominate the market, either owning mining rights in third countries or doing most of the refining. This needs to be a collective effort by the West to ensure these, and other resources are available. I doubt even the USA could… Read more »
Hi Sean, unfortunately when I quoted the trade deficit it’s the trade, industry, resource and service industries combined. So although we have a large service industry surplus it’s far outweighed by the trade deficit, we buy far more stuff than money we make as a nation and we have been since 1997. Now a nation can manage short term deficits and most nations go through positive and negative years but the UK had been in deficit for 25 years. That’s one of the really significant drags on our economy as we are now. The deficit has widened as well from… Read more »
Before worrying losing sleep over the UK’s trade deficit I’d consider that; (a) The USA has been running a trade deficit for over a decade longer than us (b) Out trade deficit is £18 billion. It sounds a lot until you consider that it’s against a GDP of £2.2 trillion. In other words, the trade deficit is 0.008% of GDP. China offered cheap labour, which is why items like Apple iPhones which are labour intensive are made there whereas heavily automated manufacturing, such as cars as still done in Europe. However companies like Apple are relocating manufacturing I got from… Read more »
Exactly. Well said.
As per usual we wait for others to take the risks and prove the technology before our major companies get interested. We have a similar situation in the Space Industry the expertise is there, we have many smaller companies involved but a fraction of the investment that other Countries put in a third of what the French do for example in that sector or the Germans and the idea that reducing taxes to Bankers for example will solve that problem is delusional. And yet our companies are doing wonders creating a Space Industry here more despite the Govt rather due… Read more »
Well, the crooks are in charge and I don’t think they actually care an iota about the country; what care they do show is for the perception required to keep them in power.
They just care about enriching themselves and their mates.
…yes i can see the space industry is no wtrying with its incubator events and the like, but truth be told we were stuffed in the1960s after the Black Night era, and then the EU thing stopped any real UK industry. If the UK wants a space industry then it is going to have to commit more.
Strange as I don’t recall any spaceports in France or Germany… yet there are 7 proposed/in-development currently. Personally I think private-sector entrepreneurs and innovators have a better idea or what is required to build an industrial sector than Whitehall civil-servants and politicians. We’ve seen in how private-sector SpaceX has run rings around the public-sector, NASA and ESA, in the development of new rockets. While reusable Falcon 9s regularly clock-up dozen of launches each, the next version of ESA’s Ariane is still only good for one launch and NASA’s ridiculous SLS is 80’s technology and uses old space-shuttle engines pinched from… Read more »
France has a MASSIVE spaceport that dwarfs anything anything the UK, and its been active for decades.
France HAS a spaceport in its a French Guiana colony in South America. It’s where the ridiculous Ariane rockets are launched from.
As I said, there are NO spaceports in France.
I hate to break it to you Sean, but French Guiana? That’s a part of France. It’s also much better situated for launches than any UK spaceport, which is why our ones are generally aimed at nice, small sat launches into SSO polar orbits. It’s also a massive spaceport capable of launching way more than every prospective UK spaceport combined (oh and never mind the fact that no UK spaceport has actually made an attempted, let alone successful launch). Oh and “ridiculous Ariane rockets” are you trying to be a parody? Lets be real here, the BIGGEST launch system thats… Read more »
Yeah France claims it’s part of France, doesn’t stop it being a ruse to old onto its old colonial empire. It’s as ridiculous as refusing Kenya independence and instead renaming it ‘Kenya-shire’ and claiming it to be part of England. France only built it there after they lost access to their previous launch site in the Sahara when they were forced to abandon Algeria. (The Algerians being better at overthrowing imperialism than the Guianans.) Yes Ariane is ridiculous – though admittedly not as ridiculous as the SLS. It is way more expensive to build than it ever needed to be… Read more »
Ah lots of hyperbole. Guess what? Your personal incredulity and beliefs of what France should or should not do with it’s possesions? Irrelevant to what is or isn’t France. France still has a massive space port in France. Unlike the UK. Single use rockets are not ridiculous, because guess what? You get more lift from them. Space X has done really well bringing the cost of relatively light launches down but that doesn’t make anything else “ridiculous” (As evidenced by your lack of understanding of SLS, which can bring over 2x the payload of a Falcon Heavy to the moon,… Read more »
A wise man stops digging when he’s in a hole if his own creation, you seem to be determined to bury yourself with inaccuracies and fake facts. France has a spaceport in South America, situation in a colonial possession. No you don’t get more lift from single use rockets, that’s a plainly stupid thing to claim because it’s demonstrably untrue with facts. A Falcon Heavy can lift 63.8 tonnes into LEO, whereas Ariane 5 can lift 16 tonnes. That’s almost four times more than Ariane 5. Even an ordinary Falcon 9 can lift more into orbit than Ariane 5!! So… Read more »
“A wise man stops digging when he’s in a hole of his own creation.” That explains why you are still digging.
Now do run along, everything you’ve said I’ve already addressed, or is just flat wrong, but please do keep showing us how little you actually know about this subject.
I’ll leave you with this fact that remains: France has a massive spaceport. The UK has zero.
That you can’t indentify a single fact that I’ve posted is wrong, but instead resort to bland accusations, demonstrates that you KNOW that you are factually incorrect and are simply blustering.
To summarise;
• 64 tonnes > 16 tonnes
• European French
That should be simple enough for even you to understand.
In the UK the day of the Boys will be Boys and the shed at the end of the garden are well and truly over. Thats where most of the great British inventors came from. I flew and designed model airplanes but finding a site to fly them was almost impossible and strangled by regulations.
I assume the main users of these will be 32 RA, based at Horne Barracks at Larkhill.
They currently have 3 Batteries on Desert Hawk III, with a 4th Battery to be added as part of Future Solider, and as the article says there will be 4 Batteries.
Whilst I agree that buying proven kit like these drones is the way forward for military procurement, any idea why we are paying £129m for 264 of them? Thats about £488,636 each which seems a lot for 8kg of drone
No idea.
It’s probably a full maintenance, tec support and training package as well.
If half of them will be used by the Army, who will use the other half? Special Forces? Marines?
Where is it said half will be used by the Army?
Assuming the users are 32 , the Reg currently has 1 VHR Battery for 16 AA Bde and 2 other batteries that I assume are each allocated to 3 UK and 1 UK Division BCTs.
I’ve also read of RAC Recc formations maybe using UAV going forward.
As for SF, I’m quite confident they have already long had their own UAV assets that come out if their own reportedly 2 billion budget.
MOD said it’s getting 264 drones for the armed forces with this contract (159 Indago and 105 Stalker). Army said (link in article) that it will be getting 114 of them. So more than half (6 Stalker and 144 Indigo) are going elsewhere.
Article mentions “The Army and Strategic Command”
I guess within StratCom is your answer.
Both Intelligence at the Strategic level ( JIG ) and DSF sit within StratCom.
Also the contract is for a decade so some of the numbers are likely to be replacements. As I would imaging the rotor drones will need replacements etc.
I imagine Stalker will go to the RA (and a few to HAC and SF) while Indago goes to Rangers, Lt Recce Strike in 16X and SF/SFSG. You would think cavalry and close recce need something too – or do they rely on RA attachments?
Question for the Army guys. What happened to Watchkeeper? did it ever fully enter service? Ta fellas. 🇬🇧
Sshh, keep quiet and carry on. Nothing to see here.
I don’t know to be honest.
Unsure of course, but I heard the 1st battery of 3 was declared fully operational some time ago. Training took place in warmer climes like Ascension and Akroriri.
Once they were to fly from Upavon’s grass runway and from Boscombe, but I’ve never seen one at these places.
Cheers Daniele 👍
Watchkeeper was given a Release To Service (RTS) in March 2014. Thales announced on 29 Sep 2014 that Watchkeeper was operationally deployed in Afghanistan, ie IOC.
Wikipedia reports that FOC2 was achieved on 30 November 2018 (full operational capability), but does not state when FOC1 was achieved, but suggests it was ‘early 2018. [I am not familiar with two FOCs – I wonder if anyone else is?]
Operated by 47th Regt RA.
Thanks for the info Graham. Tend to forget how long some of this kit has been around.
Thanks Robert. Some seem to think that drones are a very recent concept and that the British Army arrived late in the day. Not so. MIDGE (CL-89) was in service with the RA from 1971 (developed from a 1959 Canadian concept). Wiki details: “From 1959, engineers from the Canadair firm developed a programmed reconnaissance drone system derived from the CL 85 target aircraft intended to be deployed at division level and equipped with an analog camera or a infrared imaging. The basic specifications stipulate that the information acquired by the drone must be usable by the artillery within half an… Read more »