The British Army is currently exploring various options to update its short-range air defence arsenal, following the transfer of Stormer vehicles to Ukraine in 2022 as part of a Granting in Kind.

Discussions regarding potential replacements are underway, but no definitive decisions have been announced. Details on the deliberations remain undisclosed, attributed to commercial sensitivities.

The information came to light in the following response to a Parliamentary Written Question.

James Cartlidge, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, stated:

“The Army is considering multiple platforms to replenish its short-range air defence following the Granting in Kind of Stormer vehicles to Ukraine in 2022. While discussions are ongoing, no decision has been made and further information cannot be disclosed due to commercial sensitivities.”

What is Stormer?

The Stormer vehicle acts as a mobile platform for the Starstreak High Velocity Missile (HVM) system, enhancing its deployment flexibility with rapid mobility and defensive capabilities. It carries eight missiles ready for immediate launch and an additional nine stored inside. The HVM system is designed for low-level Close Air Defence, specifically to swiftly counter helicopter threats.

It is notable for its adaptability, allowing for deployment from various platforms, including a lightweight multiple launcher or directly from the shoulder. Utilising a unique approach, the missile releases three dart-like projectiles, each equipped with an explosive warhead, to increase the likelihood of hitting and neutralising the target effectively.

The vehicle is equipped with a roof-mounted air defence alerting device for efficient target detection and prioritisation, and it features a panoramic weapon sight at the front, enhancing the operator’s targeting capabilities.

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

114 COMMENTS

        • That suggests better never than late. The UK has been on a peacetime footing for decades. It is not surprising we are not on a war footing although from some of the comments on here lately it suggests we should have been on a war footing all arong!

          • On reading it again, yes it sounds like that. My bad. I’ve expanded the intended message Please read on.

            Have we really been on a peacetime footing for decades. I recall 2003 invading and toppling an utterly evil Iraqi dictator and also fighting another loosing battle in Afghanistan. Admittedly the fighting was not against peer opponents but the western allies still gave up. While continuing to disarm at uncalled for rates. This has not gone unnoticed by would be enemies. Incidentally, enemies by their own admission. Do I need to qualify that statement.

            But both Russia and the ChiComs have been incessantly banging war drums throughout this period. The CCP have been producing weapons at wartime rates. Iran has been stretching it’s control over the middle east and by doing so, threatening our oil supply, Israel and Suez. While rapidly pursuing a nuclear arsenal.

            To them it looks like NATO and the self deluding free world have lost interest in war preventing detergents. “Peace by superior firepower. Is a thing of the past, unless we are willing to use nukes!” It’s easy to see why our enemies think we are woke and weak.

            Despite world geopolitics being above my service paygrade. My inbuilt threat warning alarms are ringing loudly and I know I’m not alone. Putin’s action towards Ukraine has been discernible since 2014. You may dispute this but NATO and the EU have played into his hands.

            The timing of Iran’s activation of it’s Gazan and Yemeni proxies, is no coincidence either. What are the odds of Iranian ground forces attacking Israel and ChiComs simultaneously attacking Taiwan in the very near future? – (High.)

            Our senior military figures are talking about conscription for good reason. Senior military brass in America are talking about it too. While simultaneously warning of the ChiCom intensions. I think we are about to regret being fooled by the so-called peace dividend after winning the Cold War. It took a long time to build the sustainable forces based in Western Europe. Despite it being done with WWII veterans in the first instance.

            Can we fund rearming after the thrashing NATO economies have taken, by a suspicious CCP initiated global pandemic?
            Answer is a resounding no. Conscription alone will not solve the problem. Remedial action if possible at this late stage is going to be painfully expensive. The alternative appears to be a global war.
            Jeez I sound like Sir Winston in the 1930’s. I hope I’m wrong.

          • Well George you could be right on all those scenarios. Iran, China, Russia seem to love throwing the pebble in the pond and unlike the West seem unconcerned about the unforeseeable consequences that may arise. Worrying indeed, especially when you see our little value the Kremlin puts on its own soldiers lives.

    • On the face of it yes, but when you think the NATO would not consider commiting ground troops until the skies were secure the calculous for SHORAD volumes was probably considered to be much lower. However what we’re seeing now with drones is demostrating that traditional thinking was fighting the last war not the next. The way things have developed in Ukraine short range air defence is key but not so much against traditional threats like aircraft or attack helo’s but drones of various types.

      So it begs a further question if we had gone ahead and replaced like for like would we have purchased the wrong type given the evolving threats

      • That is an interesting argument. However, the traditional threat still exists and therefore the need for air defence against fast and slow moving aircraft remains. The drone threat will require a new and much cheaper countermeasure package. As things stand, we are lacking both and will need to find money for both.

        It is apparent that the poorly thought out, angry knee jerk reaction by BoJo. Has left us woefully equipped for what seems to be a rapidly approaching war. Seemingly, he persuaded Ukraine to withdraw from a peace agreement they had negotiated with Russia!

        • I’ve not seen any evidence that Bojo did that, but please share a link if you have it.

          However say we’d had a Labour government elected back in 2019.That would have been JC led, I doubt we’d be in any better position on defence possibly far worse. So.it all very well kicking the Tories, they deserve it, but Labour as opposition owe the electorate credible opposition. The reason we had Bojo was cause and effect, crappie opposition = crap government as the electorate are forced to vote for the least worst option.

          I have zero confidence in both Labour and Tories both unfit to govern, neither will prioritise defence of the nation.

        • Absolute nonsense, Russia wanted Ukraine to roll over and surrender which they would have had to do without US and UK support. The fact that they didn’t have to and are still able to fight for their freedom (which they clearly choose to do) is a source of pride.

          • There were several ethnic groups within the borders of what we knew as Ukraine. Not all of them were happy with the direction things were moving after the coupe of 2014. The country was broadly polarised. Hatreds and prejudices kept underground by fear of the communist state, were resurfacing. See the reports by Amnesty International etc.

            Obviously the road to recovery from communism is not straight. Chaos, corruption, intimidation, coercion and civil war have to be avoided.

            I agree that fighting for freedom and what one believes in is highly commendable and a source of pride. You are preaching to the convert here. Are you Ukrainian.

          • No, unless he persuaded groups like Amnesty to repeat his propaganda. Which is near impossible! Have you met them?

            I ask again ,are you Ukrainian?
            I ask because both sides in this war are excellent at the propaganda game. Both learned the game from the same directorate.

          • No I’m not Ukrainian. I’m a Martian.
            I do have East connections though and have read stuff and I know the background and want to see Russian Imperialism kicked into touch.

          • You’re a long way from home my little green friend. Welcome to earth!

            I mostly agree with that sentiment except what Col Vladimir Vladimirovich is enacting is not imperialism, it’s true unadulterated oligarchism. A process whereby the most ruthless corrupt scum float to the top when the pretence of soviet socialism is removed.

            We earthlings have not seen this before because the USSR is the first communist state to devolve to the next level. The unavoidable consequence of the transition from marxism to failed state. As natural a process as decomposition following the death of a sick animal. Others will follow.

            Putin is the king magot of the corrupt soviet ruling class. Revelling in corruption rather than pretending to be for the proletariat. He has dropped all pretence. Using exactly the same methods of control to subjugate the Russian people, as he did in the KGB and STASI. Growing rich at the expense of the long suffering Russian peasant class. What few seem to realise, is Ukraine, Belarus and the former Transcaucasian Federation are exactly the same.

            We are witnessing the natural degeneration of human society following socialism. Lessons you should take back to the red planet. Please learn from our mistake. 😂

    • That goes without saying. In my opinion giving them away (note – not selling at top list price) was stupid. However, it could have been partly justified by having upgraded replacements ready and waiting for immediate issue to British forces.

      Tax payers are quickly realising that the defence of Ukraine is more important to the MOD and HMGOV than defence of the realm. A failure of government to honour it’s primary duty. Leaving us with our backsides hanging out, awaiting an enemy to swing the boot.

      What was BoJo thinking about when he persuaded the Ukrainians to refuse the peace negotiations/deal offered by Russia?

      • Not sure what peace deal you are talking about George. I’m sure Putin was looking for capitulation however the UK gave military aid (along with other countries) to avoid that. That was and still is the right thing to do.

        • I do recall and have just confirmed that Boris was quoted by Reuters as saying: “He said it was vital that President Zelenskiy was not pressured into accepting a bad peace, noting that bad peace deals do not last. He said the world must avoid any outcome where Putin’s unwarranted aggression appears to have paid off,”
          So that peace deal/negotiation.

          Mark, I’m still not convinced giving weapons to and pouring fuel on a fire was the right thing to do. Taking sides between two founding members of the USSR was not something I would have done. Even if the Ukrainian contingent of our Cold War intelligence effort was applying pressure. Even if the vile Putin had authorised the use of nerve agent and radioactive isotopes on British soil.
          Cut and paste from Reuters

    • No VAMTAC Rapid Ranger as an “interim” I understand. Seen several Tweets on it including CGS being shown around the factory with them being made.

      • The rapid ranger would be great if the powers that be bought the armoured variant instead of the standard soft skin. That way when they drag heals on bringing in the future replacement vehicle (which we all know will happen ) there will be a deployable vehicle that won’t be a death trap.

      • Way to big, stormers are designed to hide in small spaces, the boxer is huge, although would be ideal for road moves and be much more reliable.

      • If they opt for the “universal” Starstreak launcher (Not sure of it’s official title – could be Rapid Ranger – nod to Danielle M). It can be up or downscaled to mount on almost everything. Boxer, Ajax, Warrior, flatbed trucks, Hum Vee, Land Rover, Pinzgau, river barges etc. It could even be bolted to the old Bedford four ton derived Saxon if any remain. I’m sure things can be found to act as carriers.

        • I envisioned a British boxer version of the American striker M SHORAD, it would be cheaper than an ajax variant and more survivable than a supacat while having the mobility to keep up with our maneuver brigades.

          • I just can’t see the MOD forking out for an air defence version of ajax and they is nothing tracked in the works to fit the bill.

          • They could buy the tracked version of Boxer. (yes, it exists google it.) Then any air defence module for one would fit the other. It would cut down on training and logistical support required. Problem solved.

  3. Seen Tweets last week that, as part of the Britsh Army “trippling” SHORAD, an interim buy will be for the VAMTAC Rapid Ranger, with 4 Starstreak ready to fire.
    Rumoured Boxer Starstreak to follow.
    The VAMTAC can be quickly acquired.
    I’m a bit concerned it’s not tracked, armoured like Stormer, and has only 4 ready to fire as opposed to Stormers 8. And unsure on reloads carried.
    Assume going forward Boxer variant will go into the Batteries that support the Armoured Brigades and the VAMTAC gets issued to lighter forces as part of thr expansion.

      • Thanks. Not great. But if it’s cheap, OTS, and part of a tripling of SHORAD with a buy of a Boxer or other variant it’s still surely a plus.

    • Had a quick Google, looks quite good- although the idealist in me wishes we could have done the same with Foxhound and made it in the UK! I’m guessing that the apparent success of the SupaCat ASRAAM is giving them some confidence in wheeled, unarmoured platforms?
      Boxer Starstreak sounds good, will get a good number of reloads in one of them and I’d like to think that the launcher boxes could be made modular to take different missiles. If your SHORAD module can also be your indirect precision fires module, or at least share a lot of the same parts, then everyone’s a winner.

        • Just another type to have in service with a different supplier, spares, maintenance training etc.
          the army need a proper Land Rover replacement. Even if it’s new landrovers. It needs to be able to carry people, load, radios and all the other stuff the current fleet does.
          The army does seem to have difficulty centring around a common platform. There are U.K. firms that can make whatever the army desires. Could be a jackal type vehicle but with doors, roof etc, supacat, foxhound.
          They need something with armour which looks to be boxer. Something lighter but still armoured and something to get around behind the lines.

          • Have you seen the British designed and built INEOS Grenadier. It’s a upgraded ready and waiting Land Rover 110 replacement. The MOD could do much worse if they want a rear area run-around.

          • The Army needs to get its head straight. I’d go for a lightweight Foxhound if such a thing can be worked out. Properly mass produced and reworked they would save lives. They are already going to use them as command vehicles. I’d have a cab for 4 or 2 and an open truck back. Not cheap but what is that’s rugged enough.

  4. A possible contender?

    “Unlike its predecessor, this new model is based on the 8×8 wheeled chassis of the Tigon, which was initially revealed at the DX Korea defense exhibition in September 2018. The hull of the vehicle is made of fully welded steel armour but can be reinforced with appliqué armour to improve its resistance against ballistic and mine threats.

    Under the hood, the Biho II is equipped with a power pack developed by Caterpillar. It includes a turbocharged and inter-cooled 6-cylinder inline diesel engine that generates 525 horsepower. The engine is coupled to a 4500SP electronically controlled automatic transmission from Allison, featuring six forward and one reverse gear.

    The Biho II is fitted with an unmanned turret that can be armed with a 30 or 40mm gun capable of firing airburst ammunition. This new type of tactical anti-personnel explosive ammunition detonates in mid-air, causing airburst effect fragment damage to enemy targets.

    Operated by a crew of three people—a driver, a commander, and a gunner—the Biho II is designed for efficiency and rapid responsiveness. In addition to its main armament, the vehicle can also be equipped with surface-to-air missile launchers that can be mounted on the side of the turret’s roof.

    The turret is also equipped with a small target radar mounted on its right side, with a maximum range of 15 km. Additionally, a surveillance radar is mounted on the roof of the turret, extending its maximum range to 35 km. The system can track fighter aircraft up to a range of 7 km and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAVs) up to 3 km.”

    “The Biho II revolves around a modular turret, which can mount a 3D radar, an electro-optical sensor, and an additional tracking radar. From marketing materials, the tracking radar appears to be for “C-RAM,” or shooting at unguided artillery projectiles that may be too small or fast to be picked up on electro-optical sensors. All of the sensors and their mounts are meant to be modular on the Biho II, with different configurations for different roles being possible, including radar or EOTS-only turrets.

    The new turret also appears to be designed to accommodate a variety of guns. Slides about the Biho II suggest that it could mount 30mm, 35mm, or 40mm guns depending on customer preference. The missile fit of the Biho II is also designed to be modular, with short-range SAMs, medium-range SAMs, and even anti-tank missiles presented as options that could be mounted to either side of the turret in pods.

    One configuration shows the Biho II system as a tracked vehicle mounting two quad-packs of AIM-9X anti-air missiles.

    https://

    armyrecognition.com/defense_news_september_2023_global_security_army_industry/mspo_2023_hanwha_defense_unveils_biho_ii_mobile_air_defense_system.html

  5. Slightly of tread here Get the MOD to send Starstreak, 11 out to the Richmond range 4.35 miles Ceiling height 22,000 feet would back up her lacking of CIWs it can’t be jammed how long does it take to train up on a manpad? Just suggesting George

    • The French have a lightweight mounting for their Mistral manpad which they fit to their equivalents to our RFAs and other Amphibs (ie their Mistral ships).

      I think it cannot hurt but if the targets are missiles and drones getting a laser lock might be difficult.

    • There was a naval launcher offered for Star Streak years ago, I’m unsure on the specifics of it but I believe it was similar to the Sadral launcher the French navy uses for their CIWS. It is definitely possible to use these missiles as a CIWS when linked in with the combat management system however, I’d be sceptical as to whether an independent shoulder launched MANPADS would cope head on against even a subsonic cruise missile or drone.

    • Would make perfect sense to me – Starstreak for Drones only giving more reach than the Ships Guns,leave any Missiles to Sea Ceptor in Richmonds case 👍

    • The issue with naval weapons is always the dynamics of the launch platform.

      This is particularly important if you need to train a laser on the target.

      It is one thing trying to track a fast moving target from terra firma quite another on the uneven sea.

      Yiu can take some good land system down to the range and test them on the foreshore – fine, on a fixed barge in still water – fine, mild chop – hmmme, reasonable sea state – useless.

      The sea is a very dynamic environment and a lot can be going on in a lot of dimensions.

      • But its problem that need to be solved on land and air too, you don’t want to have to stop your tank to be able to fire you’re anti air laser, that’ll just make you an easier target. Like wise on a fight jet you’re not going to want to fly straight and level whilst fingers crossed your anti missile laser hits its target, you’s want to start turning away from the missile for a start.

        Spray is going to be big issue at sea, but then smoke and dust on land will also decrease a lasers power.

      • The old 901 radar for Seaslug was a bolts out so it was like a gryo Bolts in and static lads who felt seasick would stand on the platform Dragon Fire would also have too have that type of mounting if it needs time on target ,too counter the ships movement

        • Indeed it was mounted on a gimbal system. I think there was a gyro stabiliser under it as well – but memory is hazy on that.

          It is a bit different with current electro servo systems as the servos can operate fast enough to stabilise something. Ships motion is quite predictable…. With modern radar gimbal it isn’t really necessary as the correction can be totally in the digital domain.

  6. So bolt on some stingers or whatever, to Ajax (snort) or the 8 wheeled thing. that we might get eventually.

    Right that’s sorted…. next?

  9. I didn’t think all the stormers were given away? I actually though it was a low number around 7 and there was 60+ for the army.
    I’m still a fan of the stormer, modernised CVRT. Easy to transport etc. new builds would be cheap and useful.

    • 100% disagree, great weapon system But Stormer is a terrible vehicle. Not enough power at all it struggles with the weight of the launcher. constantly breaks down and the crew pretty much gets carbon monoxide poisoning every time they use it from the amount of fumes it gives off.

      60+ vehicles try 20 and you’d be closer to true count and that’s not taking into consideration the amount of broken vehicles

      • Is the current platform right for the evolving threats we’re seeing in Ukraine, drones of varying sizes are now the number one threat. I don’t know the answer but would seem logical to get something that can fight the next war not the last.

        • Vamtac is just a Humvee type vehicle so not heavily protected. If we are looking at something with more armour, haven’t we still got a good number of Warriors, due to be replaced by Boxer?

        • Some are talking about an Ajax variant as a new platform or Boxer. Are they really drone-proof? They are certainly much bigger and easier targets (than Stormer) for those pesky drone operators.

          • There’s a really good article on The Warzone website just 2 days ago about how cheap drones will become fully autonomous and will be able to identify and strike targets with no human in the loop. We’re talking about drones in £1000 range.
            This will happen within months not years and is a huge threat to military vehicles of all types. So I don’t think the platform is relevant to some degree. Whatever platform you need it be able to knock out drones cheaply and in reasonable volumes, perhaps 30-40 drones per day maybe more. As well as take on traditional threats like attack helos . So we may need a platform that can house more than one type of short range air defence.

          • I agree that drones will continue to proliferate and become even more deadly and affordable. They clearly pose a massive threat to all military vehicles, whether armoured or softskinned – and to other targets such as dismounted soldiers and strongpoints.

            However, in the past the army has not provided strong defences or counter-measures against every possible threat on every vehicle. It remains to be seen if that approach changes specifically due to the drone threat.

            A SAM launcher such as HVM/Stormer or successor is different, given its role. I agree with you that it makes sense for it to be able to defeat a broader range of aerial threats including attack drones.

          • We really need the cost curve to come down. I foresee within a year cheap autonomous drones will be deployed in Ukraine. These platforms are 100% using commercial tech, so that means they will also be available for no state actors and proxies. We need to be able take out drones for less than or equal to their cost.

    • The army had 64 Stormers but they were in a variety of roles. A major user was RE with VLSMS Shielder, until SM was banned by Treaty. Not sure how many the Gunners had with HVM. But we gifted just Qty 6 to UKR so must have a good number left.

      A shame there is felt to be a need to change the platform, presumably because the shorter (standard length) CVR(T)s are all going/gone – I doubt anything else will be as good – and will cost big £ in acquisition costs.

  11. He’s hoping the Army get what they want ,would think Boxer preferred platform .Not sure how many stormer Vehicles we still have. ?

    • Enough to furnish the Batteries that exist for it, though numbers have dropped off a cliff over the years, courtesy of both Labour and Tory governments.
      We used to have many many more Stormer, in 2 Regiments. Indeed, in the 90s, early 2000s they were two of the largest armoured units in the army, given the liberal allocation of Stormer per Troop, Battery, and BattleGroup.

  12. If the new design follows the current principle of simply lightweight missiles then there’s no requirement for an expensive AFV platform like AJAX or Boxer a simple wheeled platform based on either Supercat or Foxhound. If they do decide to use either Ajax of Boxer then please, at least give it a gun.

    • Am I reading you right, that you’re proposing a Boxer-based Pantsir equivalent, with a gun and Starstreak?
      I’ve never considered that before, but the Geopards and other gun systems in Ukraine have been very successful, so we should probably be considering a mix of guns and missiles for SHORAD. I guess the question comes down to whether it all goes on the same vehicle or not.

      • That’s exactly what I would propose. Gun based systems are very much coming back into favour. Especially when dealing with small, nimble but unprotected drones. Computer images of cockerills RWS shows systems with Mk44 Bushmasters and generic missile tubes on the side. So a usable system must already be developed if not then not far from it.

    • A pity the army wants to phase out the Stormer – it is a low signature, armoured, tracked, vehicle which can take a lot of HVM missiles on launchers and as reloads inside.

      Whatever HVM goes onto in the future, there will be a long and expensive process to integrate it with its new platform.

      Many AFV variants do not have a gun as the specialist role equipment would not be able to operate due to space and interference considerations. Why would a HVM carrier need a gun?

      • If one uses a ready designed comersial RWS. Then so long as the vehicle platform could take the water. Which Boxer and Ajax easily could, then integration would be minimal. And in the modern battlefield a medium calliber gun with a airburst capable munitions would be incredibly useful for dealing with drones and other very light aviation threats.

        • Harry, integration of a weapon system onto an AFV is a bit more complicated than just checking the platform can bear the weight. You have to do a feasibility study, design work, prototyping, update build standard, drawing pack.
          If you are using a RWS, you have to integrate the launchers onto the RWS, physically and with electrical (and possibly data) connections. Then physically integrate the RWS with the vehicle which might include machining work, stud and spigot placement – and data and electrical connections including possibly a rotary base junction if your launcher pack requires to rotate. Then there are electrical boxes in the vehicle to fit and wire in, controllers to fit and wire in. Ensure there is no EMC changes and that all other kit such as radios etc still work properly. You will need to check if your vehicle’s factory fitted optics are good enough for you to view high level threats and command the engagement – or whether they eed changing. Safety case to do. Firing Trials to do without crew and then with crew. Ordnance Board certification. Design your internal stowed rounds provision and maybe move a few things around to make everything fit.
          If you want to reload under armour, it gets more complicated.

          I can see that you want to use a medium calibre gun to hit drones and other very light aviation threats rather than waste a HVM missile. Fine – is a MG beefy enough or do you need a fast firing cannon? MG – could be on the RWS or pintle mounted. Cannon – you will need a turret – a few more integration issues to address both to the vehicle and with the RWS-mounted HVM launchers!

  13. It would make most sense to design this as a swappable payload for existing and upcoming platforms. Logically LTMP would be a good call, if optionally robotised.
    In my opinion while AJAX or Boxer look reasonable on paper, they are far, faaaaar to expensive to be used as air defence assets which certainly will be actively targeted by FPV drones.

      • Given current observations, I would say that is correct. The number of available drones is at least 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more at a cost similarly less. Unless someone can come up with a genuine counter for these, this is the current reality.
        I have long argued that personnel have the highest value on the battlefield and the cost of equipment is excessively high for the capabilities fielded. This also is now being proven via drones.
        Smaller, cheaper, more distributed capability has to be inevitable.

        • You suggest that there is no genuine counter for drones. I find that surprising. Ukraine has had major success in shooting down Russian fired drones aimed at cities and towns.
          Google search:
          19/10/22 – The Guardian reported that 223 Iran-made Shahed-136 drones had been shot down since 13/9/22.
          12/7/23 – BBC reported that 20 Iranian-made drones had been shot down the previous night in and around Kyiv.
          21/12/23 Reuters reported that 34 out of 35 Shahed drones had been shot down the previous day across 12 regions of Ukraine.

          Details were not given as to which weapon systems had engaged these drones but whatever they were, they are clearly quite effective.

          Also:
          Drones controlled from the ground can often be jammed.
          Drones can be spoofed or decoyed.

          The above mainly relates to drones attacking towns. It remains to be seen how different armies in the field choose to protect themselves against drones, and which are the best options. There has not been a weapons system yet that has no single or multiple effective counters ranged against it.

  14. Starstreak Is a great missile but the weak spot is the non-automatic aiming. The is an automatic system available but the UK has not bought it. We need to buy a fully automatic system. The automatic system has almost a 100% hit rate. We also need more Sky Sabre units to guard key UK infrastructure. Plus a long range system for national defence against cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and hypersonic missiles. We would need a system like ASTER 30 block 1 and block 2.

    The lack of such a system was noted by the recent defence committee.

    • If the T45s can be made reliable enough to justify the hassle, then upgrade the main radar (30 year old design) and deploy the current systems around the country, networked and with physically separate Astor 30 launchers and you you are well on the way to a solution.

  15. So we are thinking about it, that takes the MOD ten years, etc so nothing will be in service this side of 2030. By which time we will just do with out as we always do.

  16. With the volume of drones that can be expected surely vehicle mounted version of 40mm Gun with 3P ammo would be better? this is only for close range defence for drones/helo? you have sky sabre for jets /big missiles. surely that would be lot more cost effective

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here