The United Kingdom and Germany have signed a major contract for next-generation military bridging equipment in a deal worth £200 million, reflecting what the Ministry of Defence describes as a deepening defence partnership between the two countries.
The agreement will deliver 36 M3 EVO amphibious bridging vehicles to the British Army, produced by General Dynamics European Land Systems (GDELS) in Germany, with Germany also purchasing several units under the joint contract, according to the Ministry of Defence. The vehicles will allow troops and heavy armour, including tanks and artillery, to cross rivers or other water obstacles by forming floating bridges or ferries.
The deal builds on the 2024 Trinity House Agreement and follows recent steps to expand UK-German cooperation, including the Kensington Agreement signed in July 2025. The equipment will replace the M3 Amphibious Rig, which has been in service for about three decades, with the new systems expected to enter service in the early 2030s.
Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry Luke Pollard MP said in the press release that “this world-leading new system will better equip the British Army, helping our troops to be more effective on the battlefield.” He added that the project “delivers on the Strategic Defence Review’s ambition to transform our Armed Forces as we face this new era of threat.”
Pollard said the initiative “fulfils both countries’ commitments as allies to work together to provide robust bridging capability for NATO forces, in line with the Strategic Defence Review’s NATO-first approach.”
The M3 EVO will be capable of carrying all current and future British Army land systems and will operate as part of the joint UK-German Amphibious Engineer Battalion based in Minden. The Ministry of Defence said the system represents a major modernisation step for the Royal Engineers, improving mobility and interoperability with NATO partners.
The contract also opens export opportunities for UK industry. Germany plans to purchase the British-made General Support Bridge (GSB), produced by KNDS UK in Stockport, which supports around 300 jobs. The GSB can form a 46-metre bridge in under 90 minutes, able to carry NATO’s heaviest tanks, including the Challenger 3, according to the Ministry of Defence.
Colonel Adam Foley, the British Army’s lead for Military Engineering Capability, said in the press release that “this is an excellent example of close collaboration between the UK and Germany. This contract award further strengthens the Trinity House Agreement and the United Kingdom’s NATO commitments delivered through the multinational 130 Pioneer Battalion in cooperation with Germany.”
He added that “military bridging is the bedrock of successful operations” and the new systems “will enable the UK to maintain operational advantage by allowing commanders the freedom of manoeuvre they require on the battlefield.”
The Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation signed the agreement on behalf of both governments. UK National Armaments Director Rupert Pearce said the contract “superbly demonstrates what modern warfighting readiness looks like, with British and German forces using top-quality NATO-standard equipment, UK industry exporting innovation, and our two nations standing together against the threats we face.”
It would be great if our German ‘friends’ would complete some Challenger 3 tanks for us to play with
CR3 is being produced by an Anglo-German PV company, RBSL, in the UK. IOC is in 2027; FOC is 2030. Some prototypes or pre-production tanks have been built and are going through testing and evaluation right now.
Holy shit, did they actually order something? What?
Yep an actual proper order..I do wonder if this means the new defence investment plan thingy will be out very soon..
Yes Leh, sadly because Germany wants them too, but good news anyway.
Is the General Support Bridge the bridge and vehicle, or just the bridge?
The Picture probably answers that !
No mate. Those are M3 rigs not the GSB, which is different.
The M3 is amphibious and links with others to form a bridge.
Definitely one of the coolest bridging methods. Looks more like something the Chinese would come up with than an established NATO vehicle.
The GSB is mounted on unipower trucks and they are built and launched using said trucks👍 Medium girder bridge is built just using chunky power alone😀
Beyond the order for these, which has been in the works for some time and zero to do with any work this government has done –
Exposing the Spin and Cobblers of HMG Episode III.
“this world-leading new system will better equip the British Army, helping our troops to be more effective on the battlefield.”
And talking bridges, maybe the Minister can explain then why they also intend to dispose of 33 Titan Armoured Bridgelayers and replace with a Boxer Bridge layer, with Bridges SHORTER in span than those carried by Titan which they propose to replace, at vast cost, as Boxer is not cheap.
While planning to restore our future Armoured Brigades to predominantly tracked formations.
Also of note, although we no longer have a BAOR, we once had an entire Regiment dedicated to this role using these M3 Rigs, 28 RE, the “Rubber Ducks” of which some of our posters served in, no less.
We now have but a single Squadron.
I have not noticed Rivers reducing in number or the need to cross them any less important.
Yep it’s not like bridges are not completely fundamental to Eastern European warfare.. there is infact a lot of water to cross. Just Poland has 125 significant waterways. You are getting no place without bridges… but I suppose on balance we have very little of anything to get anywhere..so.
The size is commensurate to our reduced force structure, yes, but that’s still a poor excuse if they used that as they are enablers that help all NATO forces.
Fact, as you’ve said, HMG are burying their heads in the sand and the public are kept in blissful ignorance at what might come, and what spending was needed yesterday to deter it.
Which you’ve explained far, far better than me on numerous occasions.
Sadly is a negative cycle argument that seems to dominate.. we don’t need as many of x as we don’t have as many as y.. we don’t need to order more frigates because we don’t have the crews for them or order more challenger 3s because we only have the manpower for 2 squadrons etc etc.. it’s a reductionist argument on all levels and creates a straw man understanding of our geostrategic needs and a straw man force to back that up.
Jonathan, you have hit the nail on the head. Ministers aided and abetted by HMT set the manpower Establishment figures for each service, whose staff construct unit and HQ structures and devise Concepts of Operations and doctrine. Unit structures (properly called Unit Establishments) show the breakdown of manpower by rank and trade, the details of the numbers and types of vehicles and weapons in each army unit. (Similar for the RN and RAF).
Thus the start point is the politically-set manpower cap based on affordability and all else (platform numbers etc) flows from that. The start point is not an analysis of the forces required to meet a range of possible threats and to successfully conduct Military Tasks of all natures.
The average British supermarket chain determines resourcing of assets far more logically and effectively.
Very true Daniele. I was OC 28 Regt Wksp REME in 1990/91 in Hameln, during which time the Regt restructured from a Amph Engr Regt of two Amph Engr squadrons plus a trg sqn with rigs… to a GS regiment of one Amph sqn, a large HQ sqn, a Fd sqn, an STRE.
Just what the actual feck does that all mean Graham ? Some of us is a bit fick you know, It’s OK you and DM talking in some weird code but it takes me days looking up all those abrieviatrionsinises
GS General Support Regiment, as opposed to Close Support, which some of our RE Regs are when aligned with particular Brigades.
GS is more a Divisional or Corps asset.
Fd Field Squadron, common type regards RE Sqns.
STRE. Specialist Team Royal Engineers.
Today these are grouped at Stafford, having moved from their long time barracks at Chilwell.
Teams roled in such things as fuel, railways, water, infra Support, bulk fuels, airfield repair, and so on.
😄
Ah, missed one. Wksp. Workshop, 2nd line REME unit attached to bigger Regiments with more kit to look after, such as RE and RA Regiments.
A Light Infantry Bn by comparison might only have a LAD…..😉
How, just how do you know all this stuff ? It’s like some sort of insane autism type memory, I’m going to call you “Rainman” from now on.
“I’m an excellent driver”‘ “Oh oh, fart”
Are you any good at card counting ?
Because I’m a sad anorak that has been into this since I was 18. That’s 35 years of compiling orbats across the 3 services, and the MoD and the Intelligence community too, though the later of course is extremely hard to track for obvious reasons.
But as I often say, I’m a nobody. The real knowledge is from many of our fellow posters who have seen it and done it.
And I will defer and give way to them every time, I’ve too much respect for them not to mate.
Hi halfwit, Apologies. Daniele has leapt in with all the info. I guess you know that OC is Officer Commanding!
OC, yes, of course I did !!!!
All self explanatory really😂😂
Jacko too.
And maybe Ian M?
28AER 70s 2AES Sqns 23/64 both had 24 M2s in 2 troops which would increase to 15 per troop in wartime. There were at least 4 M2 s bagged up as WMR in Bindon which would have made up the some of the excess in wartime!
71Aes was the TA reserve with some rigs don’t really know how many,
28 were corps troops so were not allocated to any division in particular.
So 36 for one SQN on paper doesn’t look to bad depending how many are issued and how many in reserve.
There is still an Army Reserve component. Without checking I forget who but they were part of a RE Regiment at Warrington.
410 & 412 troops part of 75 Engr Regt 👍
Cheers mate.
Bleedin show off ! 😂
The Royal Engineers have always been rather good at stating Operational Requirements for new equipment in a timely manner and getting quality equipment ordered. These new versions of M3 Amphibious rigs are a typical example of this. They have however dropped a ball in not having Titan and Trojan Engineer tanks upgraded over the last 20 years. Alarming hearing from Daniele that the Titan bridgelayer tank might be replaced by a Boxer bridgelayer; that would be expensive and would not meet the current Requirement.
UK cant even manufacture our own! The manufacturing in the UK had been depleted so badly its unbelievable. We would probably find it impossible to manufacture military clothing, guns and a lot of ammunition. We are absolutely pathetic.