The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has released an Invitation to Tender (ITT) seeking suppliers for approximately ten batches of Tactical Multirotor ISR Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), according to a contract notice.
The procurement is valued at £2,250,000 and follows a restricted procedure, with bids due by 1pm on 17 March 2025.
Each batch will include two complete systems, “including all ground elements (e.g. 2 systems = x2 ground elements),” as stated in the notice. “The Tactical Multirotor ISR UAV ITT aims to procure approximately 10 different batches of UAS…which will be tested by the International Drone Capability Coalition,” the document explains. Suppliers whose platforms meet all the requirements during testing may be considered for a further production contract of around 25 systems per month.
“The systems must be produced and dispatched for testing within 6 weeks of contract award,” notes the tender, underscoring the rapid turnaround expected of successful bidders. The MoD’s notice also advises, “Bidders are to ensure that their system meets all qualification questions & entry criteria prior to submitting their proposal.”
The contract is scheduled to start on 14 April 2025 and run until 26 May 2025. Although considered suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), it is not marked as suitable for voluntary, community, and social enterprises (VCSEs). Additional information, including links to the procurement documents, is provided in the official notice.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
The latest rumours coming out of Whitehall are that the treasury will sign off on 2.5% by 2030 and 3% by 2035. To get this the treasury wants to control the way defence equipment is procured as they have no trust in the MoD and more specifically uniformed senior personnel. Not sure how this proposal would work but I can see anything that removes senior officers from defence program and ends the nonsense of two year rotations on multi decade programs being a good thing. The MOD still seems to be a wash with never ending programs with interesting sounding… Read more »
2.5% by 2030? There’s no rush then, certainly no alarming world events going on. Nothing that should trouble us.
If we went to 3% tomorrow, you wouldn’t see any major impact for 5+ years. Before expanding we need more people. People take a long time to train. Especially fast jet pilots, technicians ect. But getting to 2.5 by 2030 does secure long term planning for future kit. And would hopefully stop many potential cuts in the short term.
Agree Robert, this sort of headline doesn’t really affect anything in the short term, and there’s not much left to cut really. Cut’s have been made for decades now, equipment and personnel.
Agree effectively you need to increase the annual budgets gradually..to allow increased staff base..but your capital programmes need to be separate and the money needs to be ready when the program needs it..so I would mean that some years you would spend 2.4% but another year if a big bit of capital funding came up you would spend 2.7%..then you may drop down to 2.4% again…the fixed annual budget for both ongoing costs and capital costs is the problem.
2.5% on defence spending also includes ex Forces pensions ,the myth of it all going on defence is some what different .And when there’s more Admiral’s and retired Admiral’s than ships in the fleet ,then you realise 3% + would be better . Telling people like President Trump you’ve increased defence spending ,then it should not include the pension percentage..That’s when you see how much is going on equipment.
I don’t trust MOD to get it right either, but I trust the Treasury far less. The reason for so many programmes that don’t deliver are the lack of cash. It’s an order of magnitude cheaper to run a test programme than to get something integrated into the forces as a permanent capability. As soon as you have to figure out the optimum operating concept, create a training programme, a maintenance programme, support and logistics, etc, etc, the cost of the programme is multiplied hugely. You can’t do that with every programme if you are starved of budget. Running multiple… Read more »
Hopefully your rumours are found to be just that, rumours. I’m praying that HMG are acknowledging the absolute folly of our current defence posture and lack of depth and capability gaps and are about to fill some of them. Getting to 2.5% in the next 12-18 months is not a wish it is a must-do. If the UK is dragged into some form of peacekeeping deployment too Ukraine that will suck what little reserve forces we have. With forward deployments in the Baltic states and Ukraine meaning the British army is thread bare with virtually no reserves. If Ukraine peacekeeping… Read more »
I wouldn’t get ahead of yourself predicting future force structures. Getting the Army back up to 90k would take an enormous effort. And we can’t just pluck people out of thin air.
Would we even be able to recruit for any army of 90K is my question and would the UK having an army of 90k vs 70k make any difference to the security situation when the JEF countries alone can call on 450,000 and Europe has 2 million already in uniform with another few million in reserves. The British professional Army ethos has always been our undoing at the start of any major conflict. Great for colonial policing, useless in a major war. Reserve forces are five times cheaper. One consideration apparently in the SDR that the army is desperately trying… Read more »
Strategic enablers.
Many of which, if posters get their wish with the US UK split, will be gone anyway, leaving us little better than Belgium.
Otherwise, yes, I agree, Air power, sea power, and the niche enablers should be our primary area of investment.
We are not a land power. While we need the 2 Division, 6 Brigade enabled British Army, as it has slipped from that post 2010, that in itself won’t I think make a huge difference.
In the Atlantic, North, and expeditionary wise, we can.
I agree, however the writing is on the wall regarding the US and its strategic enablers. These will certainly only be available to Europe on a reduced basis if at all and it’s increasingly likely the US won’t have such enablers as it seeks to slash its own defence budget.
Someone has to step up and we are the best positioned in Europe to do so. We can do this on a global scale like the USA but I believe we can do it on a sufficient basis with in Europe to take on a medium power like Russia.
Agreed Jim, Finland is powerful beyond its modest size because it can call on forces of nearly a million very quickly because of its effective reserve structure and large material reserves. It makes sense that the continental powers should prioritise on numbers and land forces while we should offer specialist support there in support of their operations and quality over quantity in the early stages plus air power. Our main imperative there however must be in support of Scandinavia and the Baltics as a priority I believe. Meanwhile we should have a well organised reserve in numbers to draw upon… Read more »
I agree Spyinthesky, the military brass always what to tell us how we face an existential threat and we need to spend more yet they are never in favour of reserve forces. Fact is we have not one a major European war without conscription and reserves since 1815. Look at what Finland and the Baltics can get on the ground for a fraction of what we spend. If the argument is that the UK is not on the front line and must be able to deploy then we should surely be investing in AirPower which the Baltics and the Nordics… Read more »
@ Daniele, not sure many people wish for the US Europe split, because it’s essentially the death of western liberal hegemony..and in my view western liberal hegemony is a good thing in the world. But a partnership takes mutual respect and trust and that’s essentially gone..I think the best we can now aim for is amicable supportive neutrality, with maybe some very specific alliances…such as a UK US alliance around Atlanta security etc.
I certainly don’t wish the end of the trans Atlantic alliance and I don’t think many people in the UK or Europe do. It’s America that’s walking away for one invented reason or another. Simple fact is most Americans care very little and no even less about what happens outside their borders, that’s always been the case but since 1941 their educated elites have been able to temper the isolationist impulse with an outward looking nationalism. That’s fading now and America is reverting back to what it always was. Atlanticism is a British concept that we have exported to Europe… Read more »
Treasury control of military procurement would be a disaster.. also 2.5% needs to be a next year aspiration not at 2030 aspiration…at worse a 2.4% for 2025/26 and 2.5% for 2026/27
The Type 83 will be like the Type 42.
When history repeats.
Maybe that’s what’s needed, more numbers less Gucci.
I wouldn’t scoff at getting 16 AAW T31s
Just so long as we have top-notch interceptors and a good networked AEW, the sensors on the T83 itself might not be all that important.
As a fall back, T31 is actually a good option!
They already do.
HMT is one of the biggest problems defence has!!
Yes, the Treasury needs to be split. One department to raise the cash, an entirely different one to divvy it up and monitor the spending.
And is sll it is.Rumours.
… and is as a priority a job for the old retired boys.
Hi Jim.. I did read one particular piece of information that suggested Keir Starmer may try to bring 2.5% defence spending forward to 2028. But, most info that I have looked at does seem to suggest 2030. Have to wait and see..
Endless projects that cost the moon yet deliver nothing. Are these just job programs for all these high rankers we have in all the services. We could probably sack three quarters of them and see our militaries capabilities rise. As with so much in our nation we pay way over the top for very limited results.
Repeat, wash, rinse, repeat. The merry go round of babble. We need mass, not BAOR. We need mass in the air and floating on, and under, the water. We need, imo, some land mass for future home use. Akin to the CRS in France. Because there is an enemy within. High in numbers, that increase day by day.
Yes, the increasing support for Putin-loving Reform is very concerning..
I wonder how the politics of just the last few weeks will impact the results of the SDSR and future budgets.
Interesting times ahead fellas.
Today-
85 percent of destroyed Russian armed forces equipment and personnel is by Ukrainian munition drones- The head of Ukrainian special intelligence service.
Drone warfare has arrived a new era has begun.
The above I already knew as every fundraiser for the frontline is mostly DRONES, REB jammers, vehicles, and also from the attrition sheets showing losses
Is this another part of the TIQUILA program ? As they have already been trialing and buying for it?
Ive never seen anything showing the British army’s vision for drone warfare, what UAVs , structure of units etc 🤔
I could show you current, but you’d not be impressed, and it’s
mostly ISTAR. Watchkeeper of course was binned.
CDS has talked ( they do endless amounts of that ) of Battalions of Strike Drones ( Battalions….in the RA…🤪 )
and rumours abound that such were being tested by the army last summer.
I’d think DSF, agencies might have some tasty things but nothing concrete yet announced for green army.
What’s the betting these will be 5 times the price of Chinese military equivalent. With some of these drone we need to be thinking war time scenario where like Ukraine production can be done in someones living room.
Money is not the major issue. The problem is lack of people I. All 3 services and then how we spend the money we have. At present there is far to much waist with kit paused off before it’s OSD and new kit being purchased which is poor or has had to many changes during its procurement. The Defence budget does need to to be increased but we need to sort out the above so that when it gets to 2.5% it is spent wisely. We should be aiming for at least 4% by 2035 and 5 % by 2040.… Read more »
Money is not the major issue. The problem is lack of people in all 3 services and then how we spend the money we have. At present there is far to much waist with kit paused off before it’s OSD and new kit being purchased which is poor or has had to many changes during its procurement. The Defence budget does need to to be increased but we need to sort out the above so that when it gets to 2.5% it is spent wisely. We should be aiming for at least 4% by 2035 and 5 % by 2040.… Read more »