The Ministry of Defence has formally opened early market engagement with industry for its future Light Mobility Vehicle programme, signalling the next phase of work to replace long-serving platforms such as Land Rover and Pinzgauer across the Armed Forces.
A tender notice published by Defence Equipment and Support confirms that the Land Mobility Programme Team has issued a calling notice for engagement on the Light Mobility Vehicle project, known as LMV UK2. The engagement is intended to test market appetite, explore technical and commercial challenges, and build a clearer picture of what industry can realistically deliver ahead of a full procurement.
The programme is expected to run for up to six years, with an indicative value up to £750 million. Delivery is currently planned between April 2027 and April 2033, suggesting a phased introduction rather than a single, large fleet replacement.
According to the notice, LMV is expected to deliver multiple options built around a common wheeled utility platform. That base vehicle would then be adapted to cover a range of warfighting and support roles across the joint force, improving commonality, reducing logistics burden and modernising a capability that in some areas still relies on platforms designed decades ago.
DE&S says the early engagement will allow the Army and wider Defence to better understand current market capabilities, including specialist and four-wheel-drive vehicles, and how these might be adapted to meet operational requirements. The approach reflects a broader trend within UK defence procurement toward shaping requirements alongside industry earlier, rather than locking in specifications before understanding what the market can offer.
The Light Mobility Vehicle sits within the wider Land Mobility Programme, which aims to rationalise and modernise the Army’s vehicle fleet, balancing protection, mobility, cost and deployability. Replacing legacy light vehicles is seen as a priority as the Army adapts to dispersed operations, greater reliance on sensors and uncrewed systems, and sustained activity across Europe and beyond.
Is a modified Ineos Grenadier an option, or are we looking at a vehicle designed from a pure military standpoint? Regardless I’ll be there to pick up a cheap Defender when they all get dumped on the market!
We’re looking at another 10 years of meetings probably.
Anyone care to translate this into English? Are they simply asking who would be interested in participating? If so, what’s the point in that exactly?
We are going to spend lots of money on consultants, buy something that kinda works but also doesn’t and spunk billions more in parts. Then buy a land cruiser.
Spartan, it’s standard procedure. Once you know who is interested you can invite them to an Industry Day of briefings and demos, and later send them an Invitation To Tender.
What shocks me is that this has not happened years ago! What have they been doing, the LMP is hardly new???
Why are you shocked mate! Remember Patria? Letter of intent for 2000, Babcock agrees to build them!so where is the actual order🤔
I’ve assumed since that they’re waiting for maximum grandstanding effect by including it in the DIP.
🙄
Oh goody, four working groups over a ten year soan should see us right then 🙂
please something off-the-shelf 🤞🏻🙏🏻
Very much so.
Babcock’s General Logistics Vehicle for the win. Toyota chassis for reliability & cheap spares. 4×4, 6×6 & flat bed. Could easily be electric hybrid. Made in the UK. Builds on Landrover heritage.
* prototypes already running as shown on YouTube.
Great more meetings, wish lists and bugger all for a min of 2/3 years. Just like every thing else all show and no go. The MOD really are good at this saying a lot, but doing the some total of nothing. Year of meeting to buy some thing thats over priced, does work now and then but not how the Army wanted to work and replace working kit with a lot less vehicle that get through spares like nothing else.
I can not wait to see what over priced 10 years late junk we buy and end up stuck with that is bespoke but crap, ie Ajax, buy off the self for once.
I suppose asking the MOD to run an immediate competitiion between the GLV and the Defender and then picking the best for each scenario would be too simple?
wasn’t JTLV previously selected for this requirements?
Toyota Landcruiser 70 series – job jobbed
Please MOD, just get on with it 🙈
Have you seen the state of the Landrovers on the motorway network recently.
Fortunately the majority of UK forces are using pickups already and so surely the decision can’t be that hard to make.
It would be good if we could get this procurement right for a change. The army has about 5,000 Defender 90/110 on its books plus 100 or so Pinzgauers and some of the Iveco jeep things things that didn’t work out too well, so there is scope for a good order and economy of scale.
The main thing is that it needs to be a robust vehicle that is capable offroad, light enough for air transport and pretty straightforward to maintain and repair. It will likely need 2 versions, a 4 x 4 for general use and probably a 6 x 6 to take over from Pinzgauer as the artillery tractor for the L118 towed gun, unless the army plans to mount the gun on a wheeled vehicle in the future.
The problem will be if mission-creep gets on the agenda. Can we make it better armoured for crew protection? Can we fill it with sensors and ISTAR kit? Can it be a specialised command vehicle, with a load of comms and EW kit? And so on. There is a danger that the replacement for Defendet turns a relatively simple and robust vehicle into a complex, pricey one to meet all manner of perceived needs.
One hopes that the staffs have learned about the dangers of over-specification from the Ajax fiasco.
I don’t mind the many meetings and studies that will be needed to get the spec right, that is an essential starting point for any new military kit. We should buy a proven off’the-shelf v3hicle and keep modifications to a minimum. Spec to competition shouldn’t need more than 18 months really, There aren’t that many contenders, particularly if we want UK manufacture, which we should.
Info’s has sort of shot itself in the foot by moving manufacture to France. JLTV was ruled out a couple of years ago as too pricey for the TUL/TUM role. TheToyota variants look usefull. I had great fun with a Ford Ranger as a very capable building truck, but we need to wean ourselves off US kit.
For ‘Info’s’, read Ineos…
Let’s see this procurement stuff up.