The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has awarded Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land (RBSL) a five-year, £110 million framework contract to provide post-design services (PDS) for in-service heavy armoured vehicles, according to a contract award notice published on Contracts Finder on 24 January 2025.

The Heavy Armour Post Design Services contract (reference: 702562451) is classified as a framework agreement for defence services, running from 1 January 2025 to 31 December 2029.

Valued at £109,637,500, it was awarded through a negotiated procedure without prior publication under Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations exemptions. The tender deadline for the contract was 18 December 2024, with delivery requirements linked to the MoD’s Bristol-based Land Equipment Vehicle Support Team.

The agreement covers technical support and safety management for platforms including the Challenger 2 and Challenger 3 main battle tanks, Warrior infantry vehicles, CVR(T) reconnaissance vehicles, and engineering vehicles such as Titan, Trojan, Terrier.

RBSL, as the Design Authority (DA), will manage vehicle modifications, obsolescence, and safety cases using its exclusive technical data and historical knowledge.

The MoD justified the single-source award, stating: “RBSL’s detailed understanding of the inherent design of each vehicle is critical to ensure platforms remain safe by design. Any third party would require reverse-engineering and considerable time to rebuild safety cases, incurring disproportionate cost and operational risk.”

Lisa West
Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

71 COMMENTS

  1. I know the theme is we are shit at everything and the British army can’t fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

    However with Challenger 3, Boxer, Ajax and Apache E all now being delivered and the provisions for RCH 155 (easily the best artillery in the world) and the doubling of the M270 fleet and the inclusion of PRSM I can’t see any army on the planet with a comparable vehicle fleet.

    Can anyone tell me who has better than this?

      • Do you have any metrics to support that or are you just another team America fan boy? What does any of those countries have that is superior to CR3 or Ajax? Do you know anything about artillery? What do they have the approaches RCH 155? Please name any artillery platforms in the US army that can fire on the move?

        • Agreed the vehicles coming to the army in future are all too-notch, just like all the ships and boats under construction for the RN.
          The only issue with both is that these aren’t in current service, and what we have currently is knackered.

        • You misunderstand me, I am just spitballing some names based on nothing more than quantity of weapons systems relative to ours

          • Also the ability to fire on the move is great PR, but it’s relevance for artillery is in reality limited. Counter Battery fire is a threat, but it’s not that quick or responsive that you need to be actually firing while on the move. There’s a reason why, even though we’ve been developing fire on the move for tanks and assault guns since the 1930’s nobody’s really been too fussed about developing the same for artillery.

          • Sorry Dern, but all reports from Ukraine indicate that counter battery fire is now so rapid that shooting on the move is essential. Stationary artillery is all but useless.

            And that’s fighting against donkeys like the Russians, the Chinese will have much better radars.

          • Jim, sorry but no. For Artillery to have to fire on the move you require physics breaking enemy artillery. You need to shoot and scoot (although the suitability of dug in towed pieces also shows that shoot and scoot isn’t the be all and end all).

            Put simply: You fire 3-6 rounds for effect, the enemy radar picks it up, that information has to be then transmitted to the enemy artillery, the artillery commander recieves the order, aims the gun, fires and then you have the flight time of the shells.

            For an SPG that’s easily enough time to put it in park, fire, put the vehicle back into drive and move. I think you are misunderstanding shoot and scoot vs “fire on the move.”

          • (Just to highlight how physics breaking your argument is, a 155 shell has a muzzle velocity of ~900m/s, so counter battery firing at at not unreasonable (but short of most maximum ranges) 30km range will need about 35 seconds just for the flight time of their shells. That’s before you factor in detection, passage of information, laying and loading the gun.

          • Hi Dern, 10 years ago you were right but the technology has moved on. Radars are picking up shells once fired and return fire is often in the air before the initial rounds even hit.

            RCH 155 is designed to fire on the move, there is no ground breaking physics involved just some very impressive engineering.

            I suggest you read up on RCH 155, it’s very impressive and far beyond any other artillery system in the world. It can even be used in direct fire.

          • @Jim

            Wow, okay my guy, go back and actually re-read what I wrote because there’s a serious lack of reading comprehension going on with this reply.

          • @ Jim what Dern was saying is counter battery fire response is alway limited by the time distance velocity equation…Where minimum possible response time is locked to the T= D/V equation.

            It’s not an easy equation to be because V is not a constant and is instead a veritable, the muzzle V is constant but the V over the distance traveled gradually drops off at rate that is linked to air temperature, moisture content and wind speed, direction. Distance is also variable as the shells travel in a ballistic arc that can be changed….but in general your average 155mm shell travels around 10km in 16 seconds…so of your battery is 15km behind your lines and theirs is 15km behind theirs then although the counter battery fire could be almost instant it will still take 48 seconds to arrive…it’s not going to be instant because that’s impossible, let’s say you fire your battery, the enemy can get a detection return within 4 seconds, transfer orders within 10 seconds, lay and fire 10 seconds.so you have fired your counter battery within 24 seconds..about the time it would take a shell to travel 15km..but the counter battery shells now have a travel time of 48 seconds… so essentially you will have a 72 seconds to get out of dodge before counter battery fire can get you.

          • How do you know about the quantity either ? The French in particular are big on blowing up equipment and manpower numbers . Much of the former is obsolete or not operational and the latter inflated by things like the Gendarmerie and the Paris Fire Brigade !

          • How do you know about the quantity either ? The French in particular are big on blowing up equipment and manpower numbers . Much of the former is obsolete or not operational and the latter inflated by things like the Gendarmerie and the Paris Fire Brigade !

          • Pretty much none of it yet. CR3 has a few prototype hulls. We’ve just build the first Boxer. Ajax is at IOC but most Ajax formations are still on Warrior. RCH155 for the British army hasn’t even had a production line set up or a firm order.

            Of everything Jim’s listed only Apache E and M270 are well under way.

          • No?
            By type: Not deliverCR3+Ajax+Boxer+RCH155= 4 types
            Apache E+ M270 = 2 types. (And neither of those are fully delivered).

            By numbers of platform:
            CR3: 0/145 Ajax: 50/539 Boxer: 0/623 RCH: 0/200(possible) Apache E: 41/50 M270: 44/85

            That’s 135/1,642

            Neither 2/6 nor 135/1,642 is half.

        • By the quality and intensity of your answers, seems like the only fanatic here is you, so anxious to declare UK #1 that fails to see the poor state of your actual military force.

          • I’ve been reading UK defence journal for years and I’m absolutely convinced. That Jim is either a spiv at the MOD or is a member of the 77th brigade. As all I’ve ever seen him do in every single post is to rim the ever living daylights out of the British government/MOD. His tongue is rammed so far up there, its coming out of there mouth.

            If Jeremy Corbyn would have won the election a few years back and scrapped the entire armed forces to embrace pacifism. Jim would be on here the next day praising the decision claiming we were still world beating.

    • Better how? If we are just comparing vehicle for vehicle

      Germany with Leopard 2A8, Boxer, Puma, PzHb 2000, RCH 155 and MARS?

      M1E3 Abrams, M2A4 Bradley, Striker, HIMARS and M270 for America is a pretty good combination too.

      Honestly Italy with Ariete C2/Leopard 2A8, Centauro II, Dardo, Freccia, PzHb 2000 and M270 is in whith a shot too depending on how you weight things.

        • The problem here is “getting” not got. Currently we have none and I don’t think we have even actually ordered any yet.

        • We also had M270’s when we had the 180 AS90, which have been salami sliced since the early 2000s.
          I remain doubtful on the extra RCH155 numbers, based purely on the current RA Battery ORBAT, despite Dern’s optimism.
          I hope Dern is right and I’m wrong, of course.

        • It does look as though the 2021 HMG publication Future Soldier vision is being implemented. ‘The new deep recce strike BCT will combine recce and long range precision strike supported by major investment in world class equipment. This will include the ability to attack at ranges of up to 499km from 2024.’

      • A small number of Ajax, no Boxer AFAIK.
        Dern has answered your question in reply to Martin elsewhere on thread.

          • The HCR and QRH are two Regiments who have received some Ajax.

            “It” is Dern, who is in the British Army and will know what is what as well as anyone here, so yes, the answer is reliable.

            The CVRT family consisted of Scorpion, Scimitar, Samson, Spartan, Sultan, Samaritan, Stormer, in a variety of roles.
            Scorpion had long since been withdrawn.
            Scimitar is a recc variant in the Formation Recc Regiments, in Armoured Regiment Recc Troops, and AI Battalion Recc Platoons.
            It has been withdrawn, to be replaced by Ajax Scout variant.
            Samson is the REME recovery version.
            Spartan is the APC version and carries specialist teams.
            Sultan is the Command variant.
            Samaritan is used by the RAMS Armoured Medical Regiments.
            Stormer was a latter version and remains in service as the carrier of HVM Starstreak in 12 RA.

            I myself thought all save Stormer had gone but if some Spartan and Samaritan remain, that is understandable given their niche roles.

          • @Daniele all I’m saying is I’ve seen Samaritan and Spartan in my career, so if they where withdrawn it wasn’t in 2009. The bigger one for me is Samaritan which if it has gone has gone without replacement as the only things that could replace it are Boxer Ambulance (not in service yet) and Ares Ambulance (never ordered). But it wouldn’t be the first capability that was gapped.

          • Sam, I wouldn’t be surprised if Spartan and Samaritan are still in service as they have not been replaced yet.

        • Graham, not based upon the British equipment and formations 2023 they aren’t. (Or indeed previous years.)

          Numerous sources state they were retired.

          Dern was very rude to me on another thread when he decided I was wrong— verging upon bullying actually—and now doesn’t like it when someone uses facts to dispute what he’s saying.

          Tough, I say.

          • Really Sam? Where have I been rude and bullying to you?

            Also “doesn’t like when someone uses facts?” I objected to you referring to me as “it” which is incredibly rude and dehumanising. As far as I can remember I pointed out that the contract could include CVRT variants still in service, you pointed out they’d officially left service in 2009, after which I pointed out I’d seen both in the late 2010’s, hardly “being upset with a correction.”

    • No, Jim

      The army is very good at fighting, and has proven to be so time and time again.

      What isn’t good right now is the governments ability to fund and maintain decent-sized armed forces while also procuring the best equipment in a timely manner.

      • It’s been like that for about 300 years. If you go to the USA and listen to their senate hearings you will hear them say the armed forces are too small and they don’t have new equipment despite spending nearly $1 trillion a year. If you go to china behind closed doors you will hear much the same.

      • Dern, the pronoun ‘it’ referred to the post, not you.

        I am sorry if this was misconstrued.

        That being said, you have been abrasive and rude on a number of occasions to me finally, most recently on the Boxer thread on this website. (Where you repeatedly made snide remarks regarding my reading comprehension.)

        It came across like you have taken an aversion to me personally, which can be construed as bullying.

        Therefore I called you out on the CVRT variations, because I figured you’d appreciate a correction since you delighted in belittling me.

        • “Most recently on the Boxer thread on this website.”
          Okay: So I don’t recall any conversation with you on a Boxer thread, but the only interaction I can find in the even near past between us is this from “British Foces must retain armoured formations”
          Sam:
          “Patria and Babcock have signed a MoR to produce Patria 6×6 in UK, supposedly for British Army.
          Reported on Army Technology, Army Recognition, plus various other places.”
          Me:
          “No, Patria and Babcock have signed a MOU to develop a Patria 6×6 to pitch to the British Army. That’s very different to “produce””
          Sam
          “Pedantry.”
          Me:
          “It really isn’t. One means that a factory is being set up and the vehicles are being delivered to the army, the other means they are looking at adapting a vehicle to the Army’s requirements but not setting up a factory or delivering vehicles.”

          ^This is a correction and an explanation of why the correction was warranted, and a direct respone to why it’s not pedantic.
          The only thing I can find that could even be interpreted as a “snide remark about your reading comprehension” is:
          Me:
          “Reading the articles, Sam’s kind of misinterpreted what they say. Babcock and Patria are not making 6×6’s for the British Army, they’ve signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the UK government to develop a version of the 6×6 that might be acceptable to the British Army’s needs. I suspect that means a better engine (to cope with) and Stanag level 3 ballistic protection.”

          Not a snide remark about your reading comrpehension, in fact if I’m out to be rude about someones reading comprehension I’m pretty up front about it, but a statement of fact. You had misinterpreted what the article said and where telling people we where ordering Patria, when in fact it was just and agreement between Patria and Babcock to develop a variant they could pitch to the army. It was also a direct response to someone calling out the unlikelyhood of your post.

          Seriously, you think I reacted badly to you correcting me when a, all things considered, pretty gentle correction to you seems to have sparked a quest for a vendetta? Touch some grass my guy.

    • Thing is, they need to get on and fund PRSM.
      HMG is now, as we’ve discussed before, looking at some sort of GLCM with Germany, when the army already has things like PRSM in the pipeline.
      Just fund PRSM in bulk and get it into service, before frittering the budget on the next fancy idea.
      Numbers also matter, RCH 155 is in the future.
      Boxer, only half the number required have been ordered, and it is ruinously expensive for what it gives, and what it currently lacks.
      CH3 a Regiments worth too few, as planned.
      Apache, again 6 front line Squadrons reduced to 4.
      All good kit on paper, yes, for an outlay north of 14 billion. The army need to mould that lot into effective fighting Brigades, which they are yet to do.

      • Its also replacing all its Dardo IFVs with the new Lynx IFV. (must have found some extra cash down the back of the sofa!)

    • Yup we should have bought k9 off the shelf same as most other nato countries not some bit of kit that hasn’t even been trialled by the army the Koreans were going to build k9 here in UK and base their European spares package here in the UK but thanks to master gunner sunak that got blown out of the water

    • France..

      200 modern MBTs ordered and it’s go no plans to get rid of around 200 stored tanks…vs 148 challenger 3s
      520 modern IFV with 25mm cannon vs….nothing because the British army has not ordered an IFV
      120 modern command versions of the IFV vs nothing
      1900 modern 25 ton APCs vs 650 boxers
      2000 modern 17 ton APC vs nothing
      300 armoured reconnaissance vehicle with 40mm cannon and anti tank missiles vs 245 turreted Ajax + 250 protected mobility APC versons
      1100 light protected mobility vehicles vs 400 foxhounds

      Yes the British army has ordered some good kit..but it’s no way enough for a modern 70,000 strong reference army..the French army on the other hand has ordered 5000 APCs and protected mobility vehicles vs around 1000 for the British army..200 modern MBTs vs 148, 300 turreted 40mm armed Recce vehicles vs 245 and 520 IFVs vs zero…..

      • Thoughts. On the face of it, not a very flattering comparison. My understanding is that the UK has decided that we will have an expeditionary army capable of contributing meaningful unique capabilities to ‘the eastern front’ in Europe. The strategy is deep fires, Ajax, Apache and Boxer but token MBT and maybe no IFV ( to quote the Future Soldier – deep versus close battle). Interesting to note recent comments by Healey to the effect that army numbers will not be increased but suggestions of a ‘Home Defence Force’. By contrast I would guess the French army sees its primary responsibility as defending French continental territory – France is a large country – then add out of area commitments.

    • How many Challenger 3s are we getting, 148 by 2030? What happens if we go to war and lose many. How will these be replaced, once the Challenger 2 chassis’s are gone, no more can be made! We then have no main battle tank.

  2. Damn it. I saw the headline and thought perhaps…just perhaps the government had seen sense and were about to announce all 200+ available C2s were going to be upgraded to C3 standard. So close and yet so far…
    Am I the only one that got my hopes up?

  3. It says Warrior and CVR (T), are there any CVR (T) left in service and is Warrior as near as out of service as well as C2. Can some on here please enlighten me about that. A lot money for kit that is at its lifes end or already being retired.

    • Boxer production has only just started, it’ll take years to replace all the Warriors in the AI battalions, Warrior is also in the Armoured Cav Regiments, where it’s only just started being replaced by Ajax, again, it’ll take years to get them out of service.
      C3 is still in testing, again, it’ll be years before C2 is out of service.

      Scimitar has been replaced, however Spartan, Samaritan etc are also CVRT variants and those are still in service, some, like Samaritan may even continue after Ajax and Boxer deliveries are complete.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here