UK police forces have awarded a £25 million no-bid contract to keep decades-old radio systems running, highlighting the growing cost and complexity of replacing critical national infrastructure.
Issued by the Police Digital Service
The contract, issued by the Police Digital Service to Motorola Solutions and Sepura, extends support for the UK’s Airwave communications network, which is based on Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) technology first introduced in the early 2000s.
The six-month extension, running into 2027, covers radios, software, maintenance, and support services, and has been awarded without competition to existing suppliers, including Motorola and Sepura.
Officials say the decision was necessary to ensure that police, fire, and ambulance services can “remain fully operational” while the long-delayed replacement system is still under development. As the official notice from the Police Digital Service states, “a short extension of the TETRA Contract… is required to ensure that public safety agencies… can remain fully operational on the TETRA-based UK Airwave network until the broadband-enabled Emergency Services Network (ESN) is ready for deployment.”
Why The Old ‘Airwave’ System Is Still In Place
Airwave (the UK’s current emergency services communications network) was originally due to be replaced by the Emergency Services Network (ESN), a 4G-based system intended to modernise communications and reduce long-term costs. The programme was first proposed in 2012, with an initial target go-live date of 2017.
However, that timeline has slipped significantly, and current expectations suggest ESN may not be fully operational until 2029, making it more than a decade late.
In the meantime, the existing system, despite its age, remains the backbone of emergency communications across the UK.
This has created a situation where legacy technology must be maintained far longer than originally planned and at increasing cost.
Why There Was No Competitive Tender
The lack of competition is one of the most controversial aspects of the deal.
For example, in normal circumstances, contracts of this size would be subject to open procurement. In this case, officials argue that technical and operational realities leave little choice.
Although TETRA is an international standard, the UK’s Airwave system uses proprietary encryption and strict certification requirements, meaning only a small number of suppliers are approved to provide compatible equipment.
Bringing in a new supplier would require a lengthy accreditation process, potentially taking longer than the remaining lifespan of the system itself. As the procurement notice explains, “onboarding any new supplier… would require an extended period of time, likely exceeding the published ESN delivery schedule.”
There are also practical risks to be considered. Introducing new equipment or providers could require retraining staff, re-certifying devices, and integrating with existing command and control systems, all of which could disrupt frontline operations.
From that perspective, sticking with existing suppliers is seen by many as the least risky option.
The Cost Of Delay
The bigger issue is the wider delay and cost overruns behind the replacement programme. Maintaining Airwave while building ESN has already cost an estimated £11 billion over the past decade, according to the National Audit Office.
The ESN programme itself is reported to be around £3 billion over budget, with repeated delays pushing it further into the future.
This has led to a double cost problem, with the UK continuing to fund an ageing system while also investing in its replacement, without yet realising the benefits of either.
The latest £25 million extension is relatively small in that context, but it reinforces a pattern of incremental spending driven by delays rather than strategic choice.
Arguments For The Decision
Supporters of the contract argue that, despite appearances, it reflects a pragmatic response to a difficult situation.
Emergency communications systems are mission-critical. Any failure could have direct consequences for public safety, meaning reliability takes priority over cost or modernisation.
Airwave, while old, is widely regarded as stable and resilient, with coverage and performance that frontline services trust.
There is also a strong argument that introducing new suppliers or rushing a transition could create more risk than it removes, particularly given the complexity of integrating communications across multiple emergency services.
From this perspective, the contract is less about maintaining outdated technology and more about ensuring continuity until a viable alternative is ready.
Arguments Against The Decision
Critics have raised concerns that awarding a no-bid contract limits competition and may not deliver the best value for money, particularly given the scale and duration of these supplier relationships.
Motorola’s role has attracted particular scrutiny in the past, as the company has been involved in both the Airwave system and aspects of the ESN programme, prompting concerns about conflicts of interest and pricing power.
More broadly, the situation highlights the risks of vendor lock-in, where reliance on a small number of suppliers limits flexibility and increases long-term costs.
There are also questions about accountability. A project that is more than a decade late and billions over budget inevitably raises concerns about planning, governance, and delivery.
For critics, the latest contract is not just a stopgap, but a symptom of a much larger problem.
What Does This Mean For Your Business?
While this is a public sector issue, the underlying lessons are widely applicable.
Many organisations rely on legacy systems that are deeply embedded in their operations, often because replacing them is more complex and risky than expected.
The Airwave situation shows how quickly timelines can slip and how expensive it can become to maintain old systems while attempting to introduce new ones.
It also highlights the importance of understanding supplier dependencies. Where systems rely on proprietary technology or limited vendors, switching options can become restricted, particularly under time pressure.
Also, this case underlines the need to balance innovation with operational stability. Moving too slowly can increase costs and risk, but moving too quickly can introduce disruption that organisations are not prepared to handle.
For most businesses, the answer lies somewhere in between, with careful planning, realistic timelines, and a clear understanding of both technical and commercial constraints.
The UK’s decision to extend its reliance on a 2000-era communications system may appear surprising at first glance, but it reflects a reality many organisations face. Replacing critical technology is rarely straightforward, and when it goes wrong, the consequences can last for years.