16 Regiment Royal Artillery has now accepted into service the first tranche of Sky Sabre air defence systems.

Sky Sabre has replaced Rapier.

According to the Ministry of Defence, “unprecedented in speed, accuracy, performance and target acquisition, Sky Sabre will be able to hit a tennis ball-sized object travelling at the speed of sound”.

Sky Sabre has three key components expected to operate up to 15km apart:

ā€¢ A Giraffe Agile Multi-Beam 3D medium-range surveillance radar that rotates 360 degrees on an extending mast and can scan out to 120km for threats.

ā€¢ A computer system linking up the radar and missiles sending them to their targets. It also provides ā€˜Link 16ā€™, a tactical datalink allowing Sky Sabre to share its information with Royal Navy vessels, Royal Air Force systems and allies.

ā€¢ At 99kg each, the Common Anti-Air Modular Missiles (CAMM) are double the weight of Rapier and have three times the range. They can reach speeds of 2,300mph eliminating fighter aircraft, drones and even laser-guided smart bombs. Eight missiles are mounted on the launcher, which fire in a multi-directional manner that significantly reduces its signature making it less of a target for adversaries. The launcher also re-arms in less than half the time of Rapier.

Defence Procurement Minister Jeremy Quin was quoted as saying:

“Sky Sabreā€™s spearheading technology has significantly upgraded the protection of our forces from threats from the air. This cutting-edge of defence system is a clear demonstration of our warfighting capabilities to those who wish to do us harm.”

Commanding Officer of 16 Regiment Royal Artillery, Lieutenant Colonel Chris Lane, said:

“We will be able to compete with our peers and take on some of the toughest adversaries. It gives us a capability we have not had before; this new missile system with its new launcher and world-class radar will absolutely put us at the forefront of ground-based air defence.”

Senior Training Officer, Major Tim Oakes said:

“Sky Sabre is so accurate and agile that it is capable of hitting a tennis ball sized object travelling at the speed of sound. In fact, it can control the flight of 24 missiles simultaneously whilst in flight, guiding them to intercept 24 separate targets. It is an amazing capability.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

240 COMMENTS

    • I totally agree! I read articles on military matters, both current & historical, in the mainstream press & on the BBC with increasing despair. The uneducated idiots who pass for journalists make so many obvious & basic errors that it just leaps out that they haven’t even done the most basic research to ensure that they get the simplest facts right.

        • For a start that France uses it. It does not. Then that the system have capability against hypersonic/ballistic missiles without qualifying. Then the whole text depressing mediocre level. The Su-57 reference !? well the fact is that UK have no missile defence against aircraft since Bloodhound.
          Rappier is a very short range system with probably a ceiling of 5-6km at most. A Tupolev bomber can go trough all UK air space at civilian aircraft ceiling level not even high and only aircraft can intercept it.

          If journalists were not so monocultural they could have written what it was the status and what will change with this system.

          • It would seem that there are very few dedicated Defence journalists of calibre in the mainstream press. It is very much a case of “It’s your turn to cover Defence this week Matilda”. The Mail in particular often describes RN assets as Battleships and still mix up Tornados and Typhoons

          • The BBC website has been steadily dumbed down over the years to please the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Richard Desmond.

          • As with the all journalists, a deadline usually means, either add a little spice or a dollop of doom , they really believe that our adversaries will be firing either tennis balls or golfballs at us whether it’s Rapier, seawolf , or the new generation of SAM missiles, Editors just love a scoop rather than an in depth summary like George’s work

          • One of problem with journalists, is that they do not know much about anything else. There are no engineering specialised journalists, medical, logistics, defence, etc.
            Basically you have political journalists, sport journalists, some travel, arts, women and not much else. The media is pretty mediocre.

        • Another example today. The Evening Standard reporting that HMS Duncan was forced to leave CSG21 with engine difficulties. It was of course Diamond. Duncan was never with CSG. I won’t go on with these. The basic errors are so numerous I could spend all day pointing them out if I didn’t have better things to do.

  2. It has taken a long time to replace Rapier, but this looks to be a very good capability. I doubt that it can be carried underslung by anything other than a Chinook though. The RAF Regt discarded Rapier many years ago – might they be interested in getting back into the LLAD business with Sky Sabre? – it was strange to me that the Rockapes lost the capability to defend an RAF airfield against enemy air.

    • Rapier had the same range as Starstreak – 8km max, so not really comparable. Sky Sabre is 25km+ (maybe out to 50km, more with CAMM-ER). We have updated Starstreak with LMM missiles and it is more portable than Rapier (and a much less faff) and replaced it in the SP role long ago.

      • The article says that Sky Sabre has replaced Rapier, ie it provides area air defence. Starstreak is a point defence weapon system. So it is wrong to compare Starstreak with Rapier for any reason.
        My comparison is between Rapier and its replacement, Sky Sabre – my point is that Sky Sabre probably has portability issues.

    • If the total vehicle weight exceeds 11 tons, then that is above a Chinook’s capability to lift any distance. They have in the past lifted more, but only on short hops and the aircraft had to be examined using NDT afterwards.

    • The RAF Regt had no choice, it was taken away from them. They will not get it back. Looks like the Regtā€™s days are numbered

      • Why ? The RAF Regiment field squadrons have refocused to agressive patrolling of large areas outside of airfields which is a much better use of resources than static missile defence of airfields that the enemy of today is much less likely to have the capability to attack from the air .

          • They donā€™t But if one is relying on short range , fixed missile defence operated by the Royal Artillery and previously the former RAF Regiment air defence squadrons then weā€™re all in a lot of trouble. Hopefully our QRA and superior fighters would have eliminated the threat long before that . I was just pointing out that fixed position point defence is now better suited to the RA and the Rocks released as specialised air asset infantry protection to counter ground based threats that are now more likely on operations .

          • The reduction of the RAF Reg AD was all about cuts! Same as them losing Scimitar/scorpion. They then replaced the DF capability with an IDF asset with the 81mm. Crazy concept well prior to any real expeditionary warfare, ie we need to protect the airfield letā€™s lob mortar bombs about. And the RAF Reg exist in decent numbers at the moment to act as sacrificial lambs incase the RAF have to lose PIDS (cuts in manpower). However Iā€™m a supporter of the Reg as if they were cut real infantry soldiers (or CS/CSS arms) would have to do the boring job they do. But if they stopped believing their own press and did their courses externally at Brecon or Warminster, and not internally, then they would get a little more respect. Cheers mate.

          • You have your view but a few in II Sqn particularly might beg to differ . Canā€™t speak for everyone but personally saw quite a bit of Brecon.

          • II Sqn are part of the issue. In house pre selection, (jumping is the easy but anyone canā€™t do it) in house Cadre courses, in house promotion courses, in house sniper cadre etc etc! And this isnā€™t from my mouth (yes I have an opinion) but its the opinion of my son in law, currently 23 year served flight Sgt in RAF Reg (ex II Sqn for a while) Sad to say II Sqn head sheds soon forget their original history as a RR armoured car Sqn who got re-roled mid 60s to form a Para capability for the RAF Reg. And itā€™s shocking that still most donā€™t even know the origins of the flash on their arm….itā€™s not a ā€œflaming griffin/eagle or whateverā€ itā€™s actually the front cross section of pre WW2 RR armoured car tyre with flames coming off each side! Like Iā€™ve said many times, everyone should aim to be the best, have pride in youā€™re abilities and capability, strive to achieve and you will do your job better……but, big but, donā€™t believe your own press and hype, and be realistic in the actual reality of that capability or blokes will be killed. Enough said on this methinks…I will leave it to the rest of the Army to rip it out of them. Cheers.

        • Aggressive patrolling of the NAAFI, the boardwalk in KAF and the capability to drive from the veh park, to the NATO cookhouse in their Panthers! šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚

        • I have always believed that the RAF should still have an independent ground force, to defend not only airfields, but also logistic sites, such as fuel and ammo dumps. To that end, I think the Reg has become too infantry focused and requires a dedicated air defence Sqn. However, I would go further and say they need a weapon system that can not only be used for air defence but also against lightly armoured vehicles that both Russian and Chinese airborne forces use.

          The issue is then where do you draw the line of what the weapon system can counter? Tactically, small UAVs, helicopters and attacking aircraft can be countered with Starstreak or an an autocannon using proximity shells. But anything attacking in a wave or via a large number of guided weapons, Starstreak and an autocanon will struggle against. Sky Sabre using CAMM, can counter all these and more. However, with the missile being 3.2m long and its container being slightly longer, it cannot be carried by a vehicle permanently in the vertical position, so something shorter is required.

          I have mentioned before that Starstreak could be updated with a better laser control system to give it a fire and forget ability. But I would go a step further and replace the 3 separate darts with a singular solid missile in a similar guise to Martlet/LMM. This means a bigger warhead can be carried, such as the 3kg dual effect warhead used by Martlet/LMM, but also more fuel could be carried. Furthermore, as it is only 1.4m long, there is the feasibility that it could be carried vertically. Then launched using a soft launch method, along with a redesigned expendable reaction jet/booster rocket module pushing the length to 1.5m is still doable. This then would increase the range slightly, but more importantly means that it could be carried by a wheeled or tracked vehicle in the ready to fire condition. The dual effect warhead would mean it could counter lighter armoured vehicles that are protected by ERA as well.

          You could go a stage further and use the CTAS 40mm autocanon, which has a decent APFSDS round, but also a dedicated anti-air shell, which would be a great counter against the smaller (cheaper) lower flying UAVs. The Boxer comes to mind as an ideal candidate, that could mount both the turreted autocanon and a VLS version of Starstreak. This would give the Reg a multi-use weapon system that can both protect airfields from attack, but also be used as a Stormer replacement for the RA!

        • No, neither do I. The RAF Regt had no choice, just as CBRN is now lost. The strategic choice is difficult but the writing is on the wall sadly, then the RMā€™s could well be next.

    • I am sure the RAF Regt would be interested in this, but their political masters are not – as always, for them it all boils down to cost, which is why far too few systems are procured.

    • The RAF Regt did not discard Rapier the kit was too expensive to have both the army and the RAF Regt using it and after many tests it was decided that the Army would keep it and the RAF Regt would re-role.

  3. Good news! If it’s got Link16 then I suppose it also becomes precision guided artillery, using its secondary land attack role? We’d have to be in serious trouble to need to do that mind, given the relatively short range.
    Hopefully will integrate nicely with some CAMM-ER purchases to create layered defences, or am I just being far too optimistic?! I understand that they can use the same vehicle chassis, just carrying fewer ER missiles on the launcher.
    Am I right in understanding this is the same system that Poland are also interested in purchasing? Hopefully might drive the prices down, although we’ve surely already committed to our purchase at the original price.

      • Sea Ceptor, which is CAMM on ships, has a secondary land attack capability- i.e. the missiles can be directed onto surface targets. It’s seen as a back-up / supplementray answer to boat swarms and suchlike. Seeing as the missile is the same, then I presume the Land Sabre system has the same secondary capability- as long as they have a platform providing the targetting information (any aircraft with a Link16 datalink for example).

        • This seems like a VERY expensive way to deal with fast attack/swarming boats! Martlet added to the 30mm cannon mount that was trialed recently – and seemingly shelved – seems a much better and cost effective option.

          • I couldn’t agree more, broadly speaking. Even surface-launched Brimstone (I know we don’t have it, but MBDA offer it) would probably be more reasonably priced- and more easily stuck in a corner due to the (presumably) smaller size.
            I think Martlet is laser-guided only though, whereas CAMM is an active radar seeker with a datalink (if I recall correctly), so your engagement options are far wider.
            I think it’s a case of being able to if you have to. We don’t have those twin mounts, and seem to be moving to 40 mm anyway (which don’t currently have Martlet fitting options as far as I’m aware), but we’re distributing CAMM throughout the fleet.

          • Certainly easier than having sailors hanging off the bridge wings with multiple laser designators for the different LMM! I presume the launch unit for Martlet on the DS30 can only engage one or two targets at the same time?

          • From memory I think the issue was the launch smoke, debris etc messed up the optical and other sensors on the mount. So can fire one but canā€™t see where to shoot anymore for a while.

      • Really? When I had a look a couple of years ago Janes were saying that the larger rocket motor meant you could only get 8 CAMM-ER for every 12 CAMM. I’ll be happy to hear that they’ve managed to squeeze an extra 4 in!

        • CAMM-ER’s container is longer than CAMM’s. But apart from that it is exactly the same dimensions. The wider mid section is the same width as the folded rear fins on CAMM. CAMM-ER tapers at the motor end to use the same fin assembly as CAMM.

          • Cool, so they can carry the same number of rounds on the same truck then? All of the stuff I’ve seen has CAMM-ER at 190 cm wide against ~160 cm, but I guess that may not take into account folding fins and stuff.

          • Then I wonder why they didn’t go FOR a 12 x CAMM fit out if it can support 8 x CAMM ER?
            They need to look at this system to defend naval ports, not just air and army bases. I hope 24 units doesn’t just mean 24 trucks but 24 batteries with multiple launchers. Anyone know?
            Good to see some new equipment coming through.

          • They might be able to go for a mix of CAMM Standard and ER mix launcher. I think the Israelies gave this kind of mixed launcher already.

          • Last bit… now to have a CAMM mix on the T26, T31,T32s which I think has been brought up here before.

          • CAMM ER wasn’t on the cards when we decided to go for 8 CAMM, a decision made for multiple reasons, mainly mass and sway volume.

          • I believe you are right, that won’t account folding fins. In the canister CAMM-ER protrudes to the same extremes as CAMM.

          • Sorry, you’re quite right- don’t know what I was doing there… 190 cm would be one hell of a long range air defence missile!

          • But measuring diameter over fins, both missiles are smaller than the internal diagonal width of the launcher/storage container. In other words, they both fit in the same cross section containers.

          • Well, the article was at least 2 years old, because I referenced it in a comment I made on a UKDJ article back in 2019. I would imagine that things have come along somewhat since then in terms of development of CAMM-ER and the information available. Unfortunately, Janes only seem to make their news releases available for the previous 12 months and I havenā€™t been able to find the particular article in an archive. If you happen to have a subscription to Janes, then maybe you can find it and prove me unable to read accurately, but until then maybe youā€™d consider pulling back from declaring me a liar?

          • I’m suggesting your memory is at fault. Apologies for making it sound like I thought you were a liar. I do not.

  5. One concern, how many systems will be purchased? The Rapier fleet was surprisingly small and that leads me to wonder if this replacement will be just as sparse?

      • Ah, that was going to be my next question.

        How many, and how many batteries. How many batteries is always the biggest question.
        I think 16RA has 4 Fire batteries at present. With one in the FI that leaves 3 for deployment with the HBCT’s and DRSBCT. Too few.

        So at a guess 4 launchers per battery? Leaves 4 with SRA/14RA at Larkhill and 4 spares.

        Woeful. Stop giving us the spin MoD on how good it is, there are too few.

        Lots of commentators here always talk of the system having a UK defence role. If it is used for that, which 16RA is not usually, then there are not enough for one role, never mind both.

        • Spot on, as ever an excellent asset but so few in number! We need to re look at the RA and understand no matter whatever other arms think the RA will be the battle winners of the future. They will have the Find, Fix, strike which will include every element required. They need to be looking at counter UAV as yet another priority. Itā€™s exhausting thinking how much the RA needs to be equipped with and how much real reform it needs mate.

          • Which is what I stupidly hoped would be indicated in the ORBAT reveal of Future Soldier.

            No new RA regiments in sight. No new batteries in sight.

      • Yes, it’s been reported as 24 units.
        Apart from maybe 4 at Mount Pleasant, the remainder will support the “field army’, aka 3 Division.

        One medium SAM regiment is pretty small beer for our deployable force. There will be none spare for defence of airbases, ports, lines of communication etc, which the high heid yins wish to believe can be defended by our small Typhoon force.

    • 24 is the guess for first order (3 Bty.), but its likely to grow. An extra battery was included in Future Soldier and DCP says more money for Medium and SHORAD Air Defence systems.

      • If you consider the massive threat of drones and swarms, a need to create an effective ‘sky net’ might necessitate a considerable increase in the numbers currently planned? The swarm target map might be simultaneous on several fronts across a wide expanse of territory?

        Would I be right to assume this system can be integrated with ship mounted equivalents?

  7. Could someone be so kind and explain ‘spearhead technology’ please?

    Some of the terminology issuing forth from Govt. is utter tripe.

    • It means the same as groundbreaking. Both are metaphors implying follow-up. As groundbreaking is a construction metaphor implying that something is to be built, spearhead (or speartip) is a military one, implying that there’s a spear behind the head that will follow through.

      However, just as politicians turned groundbreaking into a meaningless clichĆ©, Quinn continues the trend here, implying more than he dares state. There is no follow-through planned. No CAMM-ER. No ballistic missile defence. If there was, he’d say it rather than hint at it. This way he can sound good to his own ears without accountability. When a politician says spearhead, they are probably telling you, in the best tradition of doublespeak, there will be no spear following through.

      RIP the English language.

      • It is MoD propaganda. It is far from the first active radar SAM in operation (for NATO that would be probably the NASAMS(land based Aim120 in Norway from late 1990’s) . It is Rafael(Iron Dome) that is managing the controlling logic. So unless there is some secret sauce somewhere nothing is spearhead. PS: this is not a dismiss of the system value which i have every reason to think it is very good and several generations and quality above Rappier. Just others already arrived there before.

  9. So the key here is for each radar unit to have 4 sets of missiles, so that it can manage 24 in the air, have 8 in reserve to protect itself whilst replenishment is ongoing. ideally we could do with 4 lots of containers holding 24 missiles each to be in attendance, for both speed and capacity, perhaps this can be a follow on activity to increase capability

  10. Serious question.

    How does this protect itself from missiles that home in on radar transmissions?

    I guess, also, is there an ER version?

    • The Saab Giraffe AMB radar is a multi-mode passive electronically scanned array (PESA) radar that operates in the C-band (4 to 8GHz with a wavelength from 7.5cm down to 3.75cm, though some publications state it operates between 5.4 and 5.9GHz). It can provide both very short to medium (longish) range surveillance out to a published range of 120km (75 miles) and simultaneous tracking of helicopters, supersonic threats, UAVs, ballistic threats such as rockets, mortars and artillery shells. The mechanically rotating antenna rotates at 60 rpm or once per second.

      Although it does not have the frequency agility of an active electronically scanned (AESA) radar, it does have the ability to frequency hop within its operating range. This along with some other measures are used to try to protect it from radar surveillance and electronic countermeasures as well as from radar homing weapons.

      Saab have been working on an AESA replacement, but very little has been published about it, especially the operating band it will use. Saab they have produced both a short range X band and longer range S band AESA radars, with the 4A being closest to the specifications of the AMB radar. The exception being it has a longer detection range and is heavier. I would expect in the near future the AMB radar to be replaced by a similarly deployable AESA version, as the AMB is getting on in electronic warfare terms.

      With regards to an ER version, is that the missile or the radar? If it is the missile, MBDA have produced an extended range version of CAMM called CAMM-ER. The performance puts it in the same class as the US ESSM. This has been developed under a MBDA-Italian collaboration along with UK MoD funding, with Italy being the launch customer, initially for land systems but with sea based systems to follow on as part of their Albatross NG system. The Italian Navy are going to use CAMM-ER as a replacement for Aster 15. In effect the CAMM-ER is really a new missile. Only about 2/3 of the original CAMM body is used, as it now uses a fatter mid body and a new rocket motor. There have also been changes made to the active seeker, to give it a wider off boresight field of view. Aerodynamically it has been improved with four mid-body strakes that help generate lift and four mini fins behind the nose to clean up the flow. It still uses the same soft launch system and can be used against both air and land threats.

      If you are talking about the radar. The Army does not have a very long range deployable ground based radar. It relies on the RAF for that thropugh AWACS and mobile ground based radar. Though in general, the RAF’s recently acquired “mobile” Indra LTR-25 will only be used initially to compliment UK based fixed radar sites. It is going to be used for expeditionary use, but it will only be deployed near an airbase, which will be quite a ways behind a battle group. I’m am not sure who will be protecting the airbase from aerial threats, as Sky Sabre was purchased to protect a battle group and the RAF regiment only have access to Starstreak manpads if at all!

      • The RAF had only one mobile long range radar in 1982 – if I recall it was lugged up a mountain in Chile to provide early warning over Argentine bases not covered by Chilean radar.

        • I’m not sure if the RAF only had one. But they did do a deal with Chile, to sell them one, which was then flown to Patagonia, where it kept an eye on the airfield at Rio Grande, which is only 40ish km from the Chilean border. From memory Sky Hawks flew from the base. The radar was operated by RAF personnel under the auspices of training Chilean forces. It went with the deal of giving them a couple of photo-recce Canberras and allowing a certain Nimrod to operate from their Airspace.

      • This has been developed under a MBDA-Italian collaboration along with UK MoD funding, with Italy being the launch customer, initially for land
        systems but with sea based systems to follow on as part of their
        Albatross NG system.

        Not quite correct: CAMM-ER was developed as a joint project between MBDA UK and MBDA Italy. Significant parts of CAMM were already being manufactured in Italy such as the active seeker. There was a UK-Italy government to government agreement that covered such things as who would get what for 3rd party sales etc. As far as I know, the UK MoD did not contribute any funding.

        News to me that CAMM-ER has a different seeker. MBDA has in the past said it’s the same as CAMM. The Italian location that makes them also make Aster 15/30 seekers so it’s likely that its either the same or highly similar to Aster’s.

        It’s not really correct to say CAMM-ER basically a new missile. In fact it’s the same missile with a different booster. Which is why it works with Sky Sabre.

        • Agreed – it uses a larger diameter Fiat Avio rocket motor but apart from that it’s identical and is designed to use the same launchers. Also it has completed trials as is on order for Italy and Pakistan, as well as being part of this new deal with Poland.

          • Better watch for China getting its hands on CAMM technology through its friendship with Pakistan. Risky move.

        • I would disagree, it’s a bit like saying a Supermarine Spiteful is just a Spitfire, with a different wing!

          With regards to the seeker, it is in essence the same, but has been given a wider arc of travel (elevation and azimuth). This improves its off-boresight tracking. They have had to change and lengthen the nose cone to make sure the transmissions are not impeded by the metal tubular fuselage. As the missile uses a new fatter diameter mid-section, significantly lengthened it overall and added the four strakes. The flight control software has been amended to incorporate these changes. Aerodynamically the missile does not fly the same as before, the original CAMM/ASRAAM used the fuselage to provide the majority of lift. Now this is provided by the four strakes. The fatter mid-body would preclude it generating lift, due to the fore and aft ramping. Also there are four small strakes mounted just behind the nose, which are probably used to clean up the airflow before it hits the strakes. According to MBDA the rocket engine has been made more efficient over the previous version, they have not stated what this incorporates, as it could be new fuel, new plenum chamber, exhaust design etc?

          Aster is also getting a new active seeker. MBDA have said the frequency is changing from Ku to Ka. A higher operating frequency has a number of benefits including target image resolution, but can also mean the operating range is reduced, unless other steps are used to compensate for the atmospheric attenuation, i.e., higher effective radiated power.

          MBDA also have a very high frequency radar used in Brimstone/Spear-3 that operates in the W-band (94GHz). Though both of these have a larger fuselage diameter. The operating frequency of CAMM’s radar is pretty much unknown. Though due to to the missile’s diameter, it is likely to be Ku or higher due to the required antenna size. A point for further thought, is that the majority of off the shelf radar warning systems cannot detect radar frequencies operating in the Ka and higher bands (usually limited to 18 or 20GHz)!

          The method of control is the same that SeaCeptor uses, i.e. through a discrete data-link. It really doesn’t matter what the missile looks like, so long as it can interpret the data-link’s coding, then use the data to direct it towards the target. The management system will need to be amended to take into account the difference in aerodynamic performance of the newer bigger missile, as it may have a larger turning circle, higher initial acceleration etc.

          As far as I understand it, CAMM-ER was a private venture carried out by MBDA Italy. MBDA must have though it was a good idea even though it would be competing with Aster, who then included MBDA UK. At which point the Italian Government got interested, as they were looking for an Aspide replacement. The UK MoD got involved, as there was an easy upgrade path for CAMM, especially as it would give significantly more area covered for land based air defence. I would expect the seeker changes and engine changes filter down to CAMM/SeaCeptor during the next scheduled update.

          • UK MBDA is involved only in CAMM-ER because is the design authority of the CAMM that CAMM-ER uses several components from. The Italians had to seek authorisation and agreement. Of course the Italian MBDA paying for CAMM-ER at same time sharing it with MBDA UK is a benefit for UK. It is one less direct competitor, it make the whole CAMM cheaper due to increased volume selling and militarily increases CAMM capabilities.

          • Not forgetting that even for the Italian bought CAMM-ERs, significant manufacturing will take place in the UK. For 3rd party sales, I believe the amount of work done in the UK increases.

            @DaveyB makes some very dubious & weird claims in his comments above. Makes me wonder where he’s getting his ideas from.

    • I am hardly an expert here but I presume if the radar can track something it can engage it at least theoretically or is that being naive.

      • CAMM does not need a tracking radar, that’s part of it’s USP. It’s sensor agnostic so can get it’s data from anything around – can recieve data from other surveillance sensors both before launch and in flight and then uses its own seeker. The Link 16 datalink also allows the command post to see data from multiple sources, so if the AMD is not working it can still launch if other sources are available.

        • The Sky Sabre launcher also has an EO sensor which can used for targeting instead of the radar. It can be seen in the photos on a second extendable mast. The first mast being for the missile data link.

      • Technically, so long as you can get CAMM close enough to a threat object, its own radar should be able to track a very stealthy object. My presumption is that due to the limited cross sectional area of the missile’s main body. The radar’s antenna size is going to be quite small. Add to that you want the radar to be able to track an object off-boresight, therefore it needs to swivel, which will also slightly limit the antenna size. This means for the antenna to have the best Gain (power output and sensitivity) the antenna’s area will have to be matched to the operating frequency/wavelength, i.e. very high frequency, like in the upper end of the Ku-band (12 to 18Ghz) or probably the Ka band (27 to 40GHz). Designing radar absorbent materials for these frequencies is easier, however, once the radar gets past the absorption threshold, it will have no problems tracking a stealthy target. There are other issues at play such as uncovered rivet heads, bolts and panel gaps that will help the radar see the target.

        • What do you mean by ‘mixed mechanical/PESA system’? Mixed how? The fact that it physically rotates? If so, I wouldn’t say that makes it a ‘mixed system’. And how is it also semi-PESA? Could you provide a source, or elaborate on the specific architecture of the system which makes it the ‘mixed mechanical/PESA system’ you describe?

          Every modern radar has a software-defined backend.

          • Actually you might be correct, its often described as such on message boards, but BAe say ‘Developed by BAE Systems Maritime Services, the Royal Navy’s E/F-band multibeam Type 997 radar (also known as Artisan 3D) draws on technology from the Sampson multifunction shipboard radar, and the Commander series of ground-based air-defence radars. Its antenna-mounted solid-state transmitter borrows from the Commander power amplifier, while the waveform generator and digital front-end receivers are based on those in the Sampson.’

            The software is mostly Sampson derived.

          • The emphasis on drawing from the Commander and Sampson AESA radars is a pretty solid giveaway that it’s also an AESA system, though not concrete.

            ‘Antenna-mounted solid-state transmitter’ is also extremely suggestive of an AESA design. A PESA will typically only go so far as to mount its phase shifters on the antenna itself, any solid-state (or other means like TWTs) transmitter(s) will not be on the antenna itself but deeper in the radar and connected via waveguides (radar plumbing).

            Whereas an AESA will almost always have its solid-state transmitters mounted on the array to reduce/eliminate waveguide losses.

            We can look at the architecture of ARTISAN and its predecessors (MESAR, Sampson, Commander, ARTIST) to better discern the nature of the radar.

            From the attached image we can see signal generation is conducted in a cabinet below decks and is connected to the antenna aperture digitally via fibre-optics. This in itself also confirms its an AESA, although potentially somewhat of an older architecture to the newer AESAs which perform signal generation on the antenna array itself as well. Unless of course ‘Signal generator and receive cabinet’ isn’t perfectly descriptive of its function and acts more like a digital beamformer.

            If ARTISAN were a PESA you wouldn’t see the signal generation being linked to the antenna array via fibre optic cables and you certainly wouldn’t see a ‘solid state transmitter distributed in the array’. Instead there would be one large transmitter below decks and it would be fed to the array via waveguides.

            As for software – absolutely it will build on previous radars and beyond software it has deep links to Sampson and Commander. The US-UK ARTIST trials were also a good development of BAE’s data processing skills and will certainly have made its way into in-service platforms like Sampson and ARTISAN. The two particular areas of interest were clutter suppression in littoral environments and ballistic missile tracking (tested by tracking low-orbit satellites during the exercises).

          • ā€˜Solid-state transmitter distributed in arrayā€™ shows itā€™s not a single transmitter. You cannot distribute a single transmitter across an array, PESA transmitters are single units and very, very rarely are they mounted on the array itself. Certainly not when the emphasis is low top-weight and a tall mast/radar horizon. Not to mention the transmitter(s) being ā€˜60% Commander basedā€™.

            However, if thatā€™s not enough for you (nor that the entire radar architecture and marketing is indicative of an AESA, BAE also claims in some of their old ARTISAN marketing material that there are no ā€˜single point failures in the antennaā€™. A PESAā€™s single transmitter is famously a single point of failure.

            Oh, and that they are also listed as ā€˜solid state transmit module*s*ā€™ on the same PDF.

          • A give away is also the block indicating antenna cooling cabinet. High power transmitters need cooling. 996 , 997s predecessor on T23 had a TWT in the radar room and a lot of cooling for it. There is now no TWT.

            Montrose recently changed out the turning unit on her 997. The turning unit is very thin and lightweight compared to older generations of turning units that used wave guide slip rings to get the transmitter and receiver radar energy to and from the aerial to the radar room transmitter and receiver cabinets.

            The first picture is the antenna being removed to the jetty to allow the turning unit to be removed.
            Second picture is the turning unit ready to lift out.

          • That does not prove the system is AESA. You can have the signal generator generate frequency address codes that are then sent an oscillator in the antenna assembly. This cuts down on the length of waveguides needed and the losses they incur. BAe themselves refer to Artisan as a PESA system.

            Perhaps what is telling is that the T31 is getting the Thales NS-100 AESA multifunction radar, not Artisan!

          • They do not – I did a thorough look – its olny called mixed pesa/mechanical on a few message boards, and the guy who posted that admitted he was wrong and it was an AESA>

          • Yes, you are right that potentially there could be a single, antenna-mounted transmitter. However, that is *extremely* unlikely as it would mean mounting the larger single transmitter and A/D converters on the array for a system which is emphasised as a ā€˜low-weight designā€™ with a high mast/radar horizon.

            Additionally, as Gunbuster has mentioned, no heavy liquid-cooling for this hypothetical transmitter (which would, for some reason, be developed on a completely different path to the radars preceding/succeeding ARTISAN yet still claim to have high levels of commonality/pedigree with AESA systems?)

            And, as I have mentioned in another comment, numerous instances of BAE using the phrases ā€˜transmitter distributed in antennaā€™, ā€˜solid state transmit modulesā€™, ā€˜frequency agilityā€™ and ā€˜no single point failures in antennaā€™.

            If you could find an instance of BAE labelling ARTISAN Iā€™d be very surprised because, well, it isnā€™t one.

            The Type 31s are getting NS100 because itā€™s a Thales outfitted ship with a Thales CMS (and Thales are known for being a stubborn company when it comes to spending money elsewhere). I wouldnā€™t be surprised if the contract necessitated use of a Thales radar should they have been selected. And, if it were such an advantage over ARTISAN, why not fit it to the Type 26s?

            I see your point on the ā€˜mixed mechanical/ESAā€™ nomenclature, itā€™s just something I wouldnā€™t use because itā€™s somewhat misleading and physically rotating ESAs are so common nowadays. Though, each to their own.

          • Mixed mechanical/PESA is used in the same context as Sampson’s mixed mechanical/AESA. In that the antenna array assembly is rotated, but the beam’s direction is electronically steered.

  13. Did l miss something? There are 8 missiles mounted on the launcher but the radar can control 24 missiles in flight; from 3 separate launchers presumably?

    • Yes, that’s correct.

      However, the system is networkable through Link-16. So it could be directed in theory by anything Link-16 equipped. The caveat being that the threat has to be in range of both the missile and the sensor that detects it. As it’s a networkable system, the number of missiles controlled could be more than 24. It will depend on how the management system’s software is set up and who is given hierarchical control. The number 24 is from one given operations group that consists of four vehicles carrying eight missiles apiece, controlled from one mission control vehicle, along with one Saab radar vehicle.

      • Subtle point.

        48 simultaneously addressable launchers.

        You can have a second battery but they are not addressable at the same time. But this is faster than reloading.

        I don’t know if changing the addressable launchers can be done automatically, or if it involves pulling plugs. Anyone know?

  14. Great news, we were becoming increasingly vulnerable to UAV systems and our Land Air Defence needed up dating. I think the lessons that can be taken from the Nagorono-Karabakh conflict can show the need to be able to detect and then defeat UAS/UAV’s quickly to protect your traditional ground forces.

    • The nagorono-karabakh conflict should have the MOD pushing for a system like sky ranger 30 with maybe starstreak as itā€™s missile component for boxer and ASCOD (Ajax-whatever name they would give it with that module).
      The need for a close in anti drone defence has to be a priority or is that just too much common sense!?

  16. Good news. An urgent and important purchase given the increasing availability of drone to both state and non state actors. Can the system be transported in an A400M?

  17. “fire in a multi-directional manner that significantly reduces its signature making it less of a target”

    I’m curious to know more about this.

    • The launcher does not need to be trained in the direction of the atrget like Rapier. Its vertical launch, the missile is fired upwards using a cold launch method (a piston) and thrusters orient it in the direction of the target then the main motor fires. Happens very quickly.

    • 24 so far, Defence Secretary has recently mentioned that more will be ordered. CAMM-ER likely to be on the way as well.

        • Think its 4 Btys, 1 of which is in the FI. Think 4 launches per Bty, remainder at Larkill for training so 12 operational systems with 16 RA. TBC will ask Bro.

  19. I wonder what the ORBAT 16 AD Regt RA is? HQ Battery with 3 Missile Batteries with 3 launchers each? I doubt it. Probably 1 8 missile launcher per Battery.

  21. Skeptical…but hopeful. They said the same thing about Rapier and let me tell you, it was depressing watching them reset their little brains and struggle to adjust to the Falklands unsavoury weather conditions in the middle of waves of air raids.

    • Sea Wolf had similar issues in 910 and latterly 911 which had the blindfire rapier radar B added to it.
      Things have moved on. Sea Wolf ops programme was loaded with reels of hole punched paper tape. Then it became magnetic media. Better hardware and software improved it many time over the years.
      Ceptor will is pretty good on reliability and availability. There are less systems of systems to go wrong for a start.

      • Thanks for this. Yes I know sea wolf from the type 22 I served on down south. We used to bootstrap the ancient tracker computer with reels of punch tape – while under air attack šŸ˜ Am glad to hear things have greatly improved. Cheers.

  23. This is a great middle layer, but it needs CAMM-ER as a top layer & Boxer with an Oerlikon 35mm gun as an anti-drone bottom layer.

  24. At long last army will have a really capable air defence system. Very welcome, but how many systems are being procured? Am I guessing three fire units per battery?

  28. Reading through the thread it would appear that, as the systems will be in RA units their prime function (apart from the one in the Falklands) is AD of armoured formations. Does this mean that,apart from using their own fighters, there will continue to be a lack of AD at our airfields, or is there a plan to use more of these there?

    • We’ve not had GBAD for RAF airfields in the UK since Bloodhound was withdrawn. Rapier was only deployed to RAF Germany.

      • Thank you.I can remember Bloodhounds next to the A1 when we used to drive up to Leconfield in the Lightning days. I assume that the MoD’s view is that if we need AD there then its all over so there is no point spending the money.

        • They brought Bloodhound back from Germany and redeployed it in the UK in the early ’80s, when Rapier came into service, but I suspect they think we are too far from danger – however in an era of hypersonic cruise missiles and ballistic missiles they probably need to think again.

          • Agreed but with no defence against the hypersonics yet and very expensive and difficult against any IRBM that might now come our way. The ending of the INF was a big blow to our defence as it seems likely that a modern equivalent of the SS-20 with conventional warhead is in development.

          • Yes, and if they look at the Aster 30 NG SAMP/T system they can possibly have some commonality with the Aster upgrades on the T45s. The timings now.

          • 1-2 Battery’s of SAMP/T and 2 more of Sky Sabre with CAMM-ER and some new DE SHORAD and duel purpose cannon on UGVs. The Polish Narew system will have 27 CAMM launchers I think I heard.

      • Morning James. A gentle reminder, RAF Regiment did have 2 Rapier Squadrons for the defence of Lossimouth and Leuchars. Then there were 4? additional squadrons of RAFReg which covered the USAF bases here with Rapier, paid for by the USAF.

        But yes, 16RA is primarily for the defence of the army in the field, not home defence.

        • Morning Daniele, I knew about the USAF sqns. but not Leuchars and Lossie. Thank you!

          I think we need two medium / long range GBAD regiments minimum – with two batteries / squadrons (I’ll let the Army and RAF Rgt. fight over that) of SAMP/T (or a UK system derived from Meteor?) and at least 6 with Sky Sabre and CAMM-ER.

          • Agreed. That would double the batteries available, as currently 16RA has 4. I do not count the Starstreak batteries as they are point defence.

            If this Future Soldier was serious, which the reviews never seem to be apart from the cuts, they would be announcing at least 2 additional RA Regiments.

            1 with additional SAM assets as you describe, 1 with a mobile AA gun system, mounted on Boxer as example, whatever, and maybe a 3rd with UAV assets.

            Instead, we have an additional MLRS Regiment ( not new, but obtained by converting a Light Gun Regiment and subsequently leaving 4 LBCT devoid of regular artillery.

            I have seen no indication that 7 Air Defence Group is being expanded by any substantial degree, if at all.

            The clouds of mist surrounding just how many of these Sky Sabre the army gets is typical, as they could have announced 24 with little fuss. Instead, spin the capability ignore the numbers which as always are inadequate given the effort the adversary has put into missile systems.

          • Hi D. Thanks for the detailed post, good reading. Do you know if the army a dedicated unit to defend RAF airfields/stations; or is this an “ad hoc” arrangement in times of need?

          • Morning K.

            Not that I’m aware of. As far as I’m concerned all RA AD batteries are needed and are used to support 3 (UK) Division in the field. There are no home defence dedicated assets.

            In 2012 AD assets were deployed from high rise buildings in London to defend the Olympics, and again with the recent G8 meeting in Cornwall. These are exceptions not the norm.

          • Thanks for clarifying. It does present a concerning capability gap- but then clearly there are real budgetary constraints.

  29. Good it is a step in the right direction, however we still need more than 24 launchers. The main issue I have with this system is its mobility, we need a fire on the move anti air system. This system is good for the Falklands, airfield defence or a town/city but to defend a mobile strike brigade a mobile system that can keep up with an advancing military unit and fire whilst moving or to stop fire and move again. An idea as a starting point could be to take a Challanger 2 tank body that will not be upgraded to the CH3, then the sensor package of the Phalanx CIWS, use the GAU-8 Avenger 30mm gun and say 4 RIM-116 surface to air missiles. Something along these lines would give a good mobile anti air system that could be also used in the ground attack as the GAU-8 would really chew up light armour. Its only an idea but all the parts are available of the shelf, not only that but there will be about 100 spare Ch2 bodies available, dozens of GAU-8s as the Warthog is being taking out of service, so the major cost would be in the Phalanx sensor package and short range SAMs oh and a new turret.

    • That sounds really expensive. What is needed is lots of ready to fire rounds. With networking and the vertical soft launch Sky Sabre couldn’t the Warriors be converted into TELs with not much more than a hole chopped in the roof?

    • Converting Challenger 2 Hulls for SHORAD seems a bit like using a Sledgehammer to Crack a Walnut to me,as Ron5 pointed out CVRT Vehicles have and are being used,even putting something on Boxer would be good but C2 would not be my choice.

      • As I said it was a starting point idea using material available or material that could be got cheap. Ajax is a long way off for an Anti Air version to escort tank units and Boxer is just starting production for the UK. Also Germany did something like what I suggested with the Gepard, a Leopard 1 hull with twin 35mm guns and a radar package for anti air. At the time it worked and worked well. I think Russia also modified MBT hulls for air defence systems. So why not use what we have rather than either having nothing or something so expensive that we can only get a few of them. However, again as I said it was only an idea of what could be done to have an effective mobile air defence system. I am sure that someone could come up with something better.

  30. Looks like a good piece of kit; basically a frigate’s worth of CAMM which looks good for providing point cover for each armoured brigades logistics / HQ / artillery lines. Trouble is that Putin, now reaching his sell by date, looks increasingly likely to throw the dice, like most dictators do at that age, and risk a proper war. In that case the UK is terribly under armed. It’s not just the lack of numbers in soldiers. Whilst we can recruit infantry soldiers fairly quickly it is the enablers where we are short. Sky Sabre should be rolled out to the RAF Regt to defend our 3 precious fast jet airfields, have greater utility with the armoured force (a tracked variant) and the whole CAMM project should be looking at area ballistic missile defence based upon the ER variant.

    • Rob, Can we really recruit Infantry soldiers quickly? Capita takes about a year to get someone in, then the Combat Infantrymans Course at Catterick takes 26 weeks – so thats a year-and-a-half, by which time the big war will be over!

  33. I know they say that the Sky Sabre can take out a tennis ball size object at 2,300 mph, but can it take at loads of ballistic missiles coming in from a foreign aggressive power. Because it seems to me if we are attacked this is the method they would be using.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here