UK defence issues and the odd container or two

Royal Navy Scan Eagle Contract Extension

In contract news this week;

A contract (UAS/00044), for the Contractor Owned Contractor Operated (COCO) Service Provision of a Maritime Unmanned Air System was awarded to Boeing Defence UK in June 2013 to meet an Urgent Operational Requirement (UOR) to support Royal Navy Operations.

The duration of the UOR has been extended and therefore the Unmanned Air Systems Team, part of the UK Ministry of Defence, intends to award a single source contract extension to Boeing Defence UK, for the ongoing service provision of the Maritime Unmanned Air System for the period 01 April 15 to 30 June 17.

It is considered that this contract amendment can be placed using the Negotiated Procedure Without Prior Publication of a Contract Notice, pursuant to Article 28(1)(e) of Directive 2009/81/EC (Regulation 16(1)(a)(ii) of the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011).

It is considered that only Boeing Defence UK has the technical ability and capacity to complete the work in accordance with our requirement and timescales. This is because any Unmanned Air System (UAS) flying from a Royal Navy platform must meet strict Military Airworthiness Authority (MAA) safety and airworthiness requirements and have a MAA endorsed and RN issued Release to Service (RTS) and as a minimum a MAA Statement of Type Design Assurance (STDA).

Currently only Scan Eagle, through Boeing Defence UK, has the safety and airworthiness certification required to fly from a Royal Navy vessel. The first ship covered by this extension is due to deploy in February 15 and it would not be possible for another UAS to become certified within the time scales required to meet this continuing UOR.

Any future capability after 2017 will be managed via a competition.

So there you go.

About The Author

Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!

5 Comments

  1. ArmChairCivvy

    Thanks TOC. Bad taste, though, to use Blackjack when it is a code name for a maritime strike a/c otr bomber that is in active inventory

  2. Raffles, the Gentleman Thug

    But Blackjack is a NATO reporting name for the Russian TU-160. Should we rename the Foxhound because the MiG-31 shares the same name, and was around beforehand?

  3. Beno

    Seems to be mostly a recon asset and target designator. Very useful in of itself. Would be great to get a basic Radar on the thing, but not in the 30lb limit they are talking about i would imagin ?

    Good to see the RN using these thought and im sure they are developing the processes and concepts well towards a serious strategy and future purchase.

    i like them alot.

    Im sure will will give them a GOOD name when it come time :P

Comments are closed.

↓