The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that no decision has yet been made on how many Land Autonomous Collaborative Platforms could ultimately be procured to operate alongside the Army’s AH-64E Apache helicopters, as it set out the formal competition timeline for Project NYX.
Responding to a series of written questions from Conservative MP James Cartlidge, defence minister Luke Pollard said Project NYX is a demonstrator programme intended to validate the concept of a Land Autonomous Collaborative Platform, with procurement decisions to follow only after trials are complete.
Pollard confirmed that “no decision has been made on platform numbers; these will depend on evolving strategies and requirements”, adding that completion of the demonstrator phase will inform any future procurement.
The minister said the competition for Project NYX formally began on 28 November 2025 with the release of a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire. He confirmed that the Invitation to Tender will be issued in the week commencing 12 January 2026 and will close on 27 February 2026.
According to the answers, Project NYX is being run as a concept demonstrator, with public information available via the Defence Sourcing Portal and the Find a Tender service. Pollard said the programme will “inform future procurement”, with initial capability delivery currently expected from 2030.
Asked separately when the competition would open and close, Pollard reiterated the same timetable, underlining that the department is still in the early stages of the process. He also confirmed that no firm acquisition plan exists at this point, reflecting the experimental nature of the programme.
In response to a further question from Ben Obese-Jecty on whether the full scope of Project NYX would be published, Pollard again pointed to existing public tender documentation, indicating that additional detail would be provided through the competitive process rather than via ministerial statement.
No decisions on anything other than reviews or assessments. Every other country in NATO is beefing up its capabilities whilst we cut, dither, cut, procrastinate and form committees
Not even sure you need to make such a decision. Get plenty of all different types and make the decision on a mission by mission basis. This isn’t rocket science.
I think he was referring to the Article and It’s wording. 😁
In many ways I was agreeing with him. This new procurement process needs to focus heavily on the user requirements one of which includes the quantity you wish to buy and an indicator as to how much you are prepared to spend. Without that information potential contractors will not be able to deduce if their potential solution(s) might be viable. The procurement process should avoid telling the contractor how to do their job the MOD just need to say the sort of thing the drone might need to do.
We manage to buy cars without designing them ourselves. The manufacturers do need to deduce what sort of spec is needed so that they can ensure they can build affordable vehicles.
But surely we are buying “Swarms” of them to go with our “vast fleets” of Apache’s so we can attack “En Masse” with multiple “One Way Effectors” and Cutting edge, world class “enablers” ?
🤔🙄🤦♂️
The MOD confirms that no decision has yet been made on ‘any thing’,
Now that’s not true. They had to make 2 or 3 billion of cuts in this years budget.
yes but we are not meant to know about that, thats why they keep going on about the up lift in defence, and other such pointless words.
Very wise. No point in making a decision when it can be put off for years while they have meetings deciding it’s too late to do anything.
🤣🤣 it is all getting very preditable and boring now! I think the only thing theve actually ordered now is 53 jackles in 18 months comedy!
Don’t forget to 12 Sky Sabre somethings….
Yes, farcial. The money is going to industry not new military equipment.
Ahh yes how could I forget.
Sadly you are correct no interest in military capability just jobs and industry but they are all as bad as each other!
The disaster that is Ajax has thrown a massive spanner in the works now!
The navy joining with Norway is a saving grace looks like they might get some Vanguards to replace the River batch ones quite quickly to perform several duties.
Jackals are prefect for a UAV saturated environment, those nice open vehicles will confuse UAV crews and AI into thinking the jackals lost their roof already….why are we seriously buying these things still ?
I can envisage MBTs being equipped with drones too and housed on the turret. Packaging and size could be a limiting factor in determining how many each tank can carry; however, each drone could be controlled by the commander to perform reconnaissance and also act as a loitering countermeasure, thus enhancing survivability.
I’ve been thinking for a while now that countering small UAS, particularly FPV drones, is probably best done using small autonomous drones as the countermeasure. Having them spread across armoured vehicles would make a lot of sense, and I suspect that’s ultimately where we’ll end up.
I searched online, and MARSS UK is developing some very interesting interceptor drones:
• Interceptor‑MR (Medium Range) — a larger interceptor capable of engaging targets at ranges of around 5 km or more, using onboard AI and imaging to autonomously pursue and defeat drone threats.
• Interceptor‑SR (Short Range) — a smaller, lighter version (~1.5 kg) with about 1 km engagement range, suitable for vehicle mounting or even man‑portable use, tracking hostile UAS autonomously through onboard sensors.
Greg, imagine a MBT commander could send out drones as an umbrella of observation to work in combination with his/her range finders and other target acquisition systems and allowing it to attack targets from the ground and air. Obviously, other tank drones could interconnect to network collectively against multiple targets. Combining drones with MBTs could be a way to broaden the scope of future tank designs, resulting in a variety of functions not conventionally associated with the vehicle.
Maurice, check out Felix’s reply. I’ll look at it properly later, but on a quick look it seems the Americans are already doing this — reconnaissance and precision strikes.
GD has put PERCH launcher on Abrams tank.
Thanks Felix 👍
Nothing is new!
Why put drones on an MBT? Why not on a truck? Trucks are much cheaper and don’t have a turret.
Maurice, Other than the fact that the MBTs role does not include recce (that being done by specialists with the kit and time to do it), there are practical problems with drones on MBTs. Workload – does the commander have the time and bandwidth to deploy drone(s) and monitor the feed from one or even several drones? He is already incredibly busy.
Where would they be carried? Not on engine decks, not on front glacis. So are you suggesting the turret top? Lots of other kit there and the commander needs an all-round view which would be obscured by drones and launch rails etc. That drone kit would increase the height and chance of detection by enemy.
Graham, Greg and I are thinking outside the box on this one; however, drone size would be critical, though even small ones can function with incredible clarity and even carry small charges capable of taking out individuals who could be equipped with anti-tank systems? In terms of workload, I’m not privy to how the commander or gunner functions, but I would imagine additional target information would be extremely useful. The field commander could combine recon (Ajax) and the MBT-mounted drones independently if required, based on the intel, thus relieving the tankers’ workload. Another factor is the inclusion of AI and how networking with other assets would broaden the MBT’s operability. In terms of packaging, take a look at the latest German Leapard A8 for additional turret fixtures, it takes turret design to the next level. Happy Christmas mate.
No change then. War footings, Mr Starmer?
Words, and more words.
Utterly terrified of ordering anything, or expanding defence spending so much none of it reaches the military?
What will it be?
New Ballroom for No 10 ?
Brilliant!
Daniele, there is evidence of movement towards new equipment, but not for the Army. Just watch how the Ajax debacle will be used to fight the case for not investing, and if so, moving forward cautiously. That said, I would guess they are working night and day at the MOD to figure out a rapid solution to Ajax that won’t require more years of delay………..Bradley???????????
If these one way drones wouldn’t their range and speed severly affect shared ops with the Apaches? And isn’t there a risk of collision with the agile Apaches? Can these drones be launched from transport planes used in partnership with the Apaches?
Blether blether blether no change no change just delay and discuss and pray Putin dies and is replaced by a nice young lady. I didn’t realise the UK had this much sand to take all these heads stuck in it.