Lord Vernon Coaker, Minister of State for Defence in the House of Lords, has outlined the Ministry of Defence’s (MOD) ongoing and future air defence plans in a letter to Baroness Annabel Goldie, dated 17 February 2025.
The letter follows an Oral Question on Air Defence in the House of Lords on 9 January 2025, where Baroness Goldie requested further details on the government’s approach to strengthening air defence capabilities.
While the Strategic Defence Review will provide a more detailed roadmap, Lord Coaker confirmed that several key projects are already in progress, including:
- Increasing the number of SkySabre Medium Range Ground-Based Air Defence launchers to nine.
- Developing Sea Viper Evolution missiles, designed to counter ballistic missile threats, with service entry scheduled for 2028.
- Introducing the E-7 Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning aircraft, which will significantly improve early threat detection and interception, entering service later this year.
The letter also sets out ongoing collaboration with allies to enhance interoperability across NATO and Europe. Lord Coaker stated that the UK is actively engaged in:
- The DIAMOND Initiative, which aims to integrate air defence systems across Europe for faster decision-making and more effective responses to threats.
- The European Sky Shield Initiative (ESSI), a multinational effort to develop an integrated European air defence system with anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The UK has signed a Letter of Intent to take part.
- The European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA), a collaborative programme involving six NATO nations, supporting projects such as the Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon (FC/ASW) and deep precision strike capabilities under the UK-German Trinity House Agreement.
- The Trinity House Agreement with Germany, which aims to boost industrial collaboration and investment in Integrated Air and Missile Defence (IAMD).
The letter states that NATO alignment remains central to the UK’s defence planning, ensuring that national investments contribute effectively to shared security objectives.
“Increasing launchers to 9”
Confusing, as I understood there were more than that already.
4 AD Batteries in 16 RA.
Each of 2 Fire groups.
Each FG of 2 or 3 launchers as a “system.”
So 8 FG and between 16 and 24 launchers currently.
Does he mean a Sky Sabre System?
If there are less than 9 launchers currently in a Regiment of 4 Batteries, then the FGs are in a greater mess than I thought.
I agree.
But I think some were sold to Poland on QT.
I also think it was ‘tested’ on targets kindly provided by Mad Vlad Mash in UKR and did very well. So I think some systems were donated to protect something in particular. All speculation by dot joining.
And if that was what it took to get Poland on board with CAMM-MR crash investment then that is a great use of resource.
Well whatever we donated or sold also needs to be replaced. God you hope governments would get serious with this stuff
This is not much… no commitment to a permanent UK based long range SAM system like ASTER 30 block 1. This is another example of the Government doing the absolute minimum.
Yes, just the usual re announcement of old news, E7 coming in cut, and lots of talking with allies.
Standard.
Hopefully he means 9 batteries.
I’m surprised but happy that FC/ASW is now listed as part of ELSA, it did not make much sense for the UK to develop two cruise missiles for one program then join another program to develop another cruise missile.
Lmao. No we only have 6 launchers at the moment.
16-24. That’s hilarious. 😆 you wish
No we don’t, we have 24. 6 batteries 4 launchers a peace.
“However, there are only about six Sky Sabre systems in service with the British Army, and at least two are deployed overseas, to the Falkland Islands and Poland.” – Hansard UK Parliament
“On land, the military has around six Sky Sabre ground-based air defence systems – each one able to shoot down multiple missiles” – Sky News
“The Army currently operate six Sky Sabre systems” , “A Sky Sabre system comprises three main sections: the brain (a Rafael command and control (C2) system), the sensor (a Saab Griaffe Agile Multibeam Radar), and the missile system (MBDA’s Land Interceptor launcher that fires CAMM missiles).” – Army Technology
Keep coping Jimbo. We have 6 launchers, not 24.
I can’t find any info at all how many have been ordered or how many were delivered. It’s kinda odd how quiet it’s been kept.
Each system includes 4 launchers…the launchers are not the system.
A system consists of
One command and control surface to air missile vehicle
One sensor vehicle
Four launcher vehicles
So yes the 6 systems consist of 24 launchers, 6 command vehicles and 6 sensor vehicles.
As hilarious as in your name?
“Keep coping Jimbo”
So you think a launcher is a system.😃
As your article says, at least two are deployed to Poland and the Falklands.
That is because the Battery doing the Falklands rotation also picked up the Polish commitment.
And the Battery is split into 2 Fire Groups, 1 in each location.
A FG will have more than a solitary launcher.
Keep laughing. 👍
Yes, multiple sources including Hansard state the UK has 6 systems and or 6 batteries with each including command post, radar and four to six launchers. So regarding statement it appears we will see a 50% increase and move to 9.
Not what we want but better than nothing. Hopefully we see more from SDR.
‘Hopefully’ he means nine MORE batteries than what we should already have….
I hope it means expanded to 9 from the 4 current.
Isn’t it 6 current?
Sam.
16 RA has 4 Fire Batteries.
That was my hope too.
They did announce last year, if you recall, that medium range AD was to “double” and SHORAD to “Triple.”
Would mean an additional Sky Sabre Regiment.
The initial purchase was for 24 of the i-Launchers mounted on MAN SV trucks to form 8 fire groups. Each standard fire group consists of; 3 MBDA i-Launchers with 8 CAMM missiles each, 1 SAAB Giraffe medium range radar and 1 fire control centre alongside additional MAN SVs for handling additional reloads – to clear up the mob of confusion that has formed under your original comment.
This article is vague however, it had previously been spoken of unofficially on some forums by supposed RA members that the 24 original launchers were just the beginning of ground based CAMM procurement and the intent has always been (what I’m referencing was posted in 2021) to eventually expand Skysaber numbers to around 8 batteries (still all following of the dual fire group concept so technically up to 16 batteries by international standards) and procure one of the longer range SAAB Giraffe radars for each of the existing batteries to enhance situational awareness and the engagement envelope – rumour also discussed longer range missiles (a few years before the CAMM-MR programme began) being considered to be integrated into the batteries launchers alongside the standard CAMM.
The SAAB have opened a UK radar facility.
The CAMM-MR programme is real and funded.
So I’d say that was wheels in motion.
This sounds like a short term boost that was probably in the works QT.
Army were quite open for a while that after the initial purchase they wanted a longer ranger version and in typical army way wanted full gold plate rather than more. Army perfectionism is a bit of an issue.
I suspect Big Ben said more and everyone else has seen that it works IRL so more happened when it was explained that it was a modular system that could be upgraded and you could even mix and match different flavours of CAMM.
Good post. Thanks Rowan.
This was my understanding, was not sure on 2 or 3 per FG.
That tallies nicely with the “MRAD to double” statements from the army ( was it CGS? ) a while ago.
Daniele, I read somewhere that the army only have 6 SkySabre systems, of which one is deployed in Estonia (or Poland??) and another in the Falklands.
How many Rapier Fire Units did UK have back in the day?!
Hi Graham.
As I’ve mentioned several times on here, one of 16RAs 4 Fire Batteries picks up the Falkland and Polish commitments.
Batteries are split into 2 Fire Groups each. 1 FG is/was allocated to each theatre.
That should then tally with 1 System per FG.
Missed your last, sorry. I recall Rapier FSC was 24.
So same.
Worse still when you consider that some of these are tied up with a constant Falklands commitment, and ongoing MBDA testing.
The contingency element of the system has always hotly debated.
Let’s not hope that’s the limit of SDSR just spilled out. 9 land Ceptor launchers isn’t anywhere near adequate.v
3 Wedgetails won’t cut the mustard
Equipping type 45s with BMD capable Asters has already been announced and funded by the dreaded Tories (last incompetent bunch in charge)
We are going to need to go significantly much further than this if we are going to stand any chance of facing a peer enemy with any confidence of standing out ground and not getting militarily defeated.
Do we still have stormers and LML javelin launchers or have they all gone already?
All gone to Ukraine pal.
Can’t afford to buy anymore because we need to house the far away people in warm 5 star hotels.
Bollocks.
5 HVM Starstreak on Stormer were donated to Ukraine.
12 RA remains with 6 Batteries, up from 4.
4 have Stormer, 2 with LMM.
Good post, Daniele.
I dislike these sweeping statements saying everything has been donated to Ukraine.
Plenty of recent videos on Force News etc of us still exercising with Stormer in Estonia.
Of course, it’s central to the Field Army’s SHORAD!
It’s a public forum, if you post cobblers on it someone might be along to correct you.
The number of Stormer per Troop within 12 RAs Batteries has fallen through the floor from what it was, that started back in Labour’s day, pre 2010, as did most of the GBAD cuts.
Lol this is moronic, E7 was already announced and dropped fomr 5 to 3 orders, with us having to pay for all 5 radars because of a fixed contract.
9 launchers wouldnt cover scotland let alone UK.
And all those other plans are years and years in the making, FC/ASW seems like a fractured programme, making one subsonic stealth and one hypersonic, that really should be two programs sharing where needed, and it won’t be on planes, usable, for at least a decade if historical timelines are to be believed.
We need a large bulk storm shadow order, and possibly a block increment upgrade to it. We need a large bulk joint order with poland for the sky sabre launcher and the CAMM missiles.
E7 orders need to go up to 9+
From Hansard Air and missile defence debate Nov 2024 it was clear at the time there were 6 sky sabre systems, so six batteries of 4 launchers each..so we had 24 launchers by 2024 with 1 deployed to the Falklands and 1 to Poland. I would imagine then this means 9 systems with 4 launchers..
It’s still inadequate battery wise the following should be a no brainier
What’s needed
3 batteries for 3rd division
1-2 batteries for 1 division
1 battery for Falklands
1 battery for Cyprus
4 batteries for UK port defence
4 batteries for UK airbase defence
So we need more like 15 systems
Then we need
There also needs to be some form of programme for an effective but cheaper air defence system for core civilian infrastructure…simply put if we did get into a war with Russia we know Russia would launch cruise missile or drone attacks at core civilian infrastructure so we do need to protect that as well.
So 20+ cheaper short range 10km+ air defence systems for core civilian infrastructure
We also need some form of medium/intermediate range BM defence for irreplaceable military targets.
4 ABM systems such as arrow 3
I’m not convinced by sky sabre for uk defence. It’s too short ranged and can’t deal with ballistic missiles. I think SAMP/T possibly incorporating CAMM like the Italians do is what we need for the UK.
I Jim I think like anything we would need a high low mix..in the end if we had an issue with Russia most of what it would shoot at the UK would be sub or air launched cruise missiles. With the potential of IRBMs or air launched ballistic missile.
100% right.
Needs
High – SAMPT
Medium – CAMM-MR
Short – CAMM
Close in – 40mm
Let’s put it this way if someone wants to do a repeated saturation attacked with cheap drones do you fire all the expensive missiles or do you use up 40mm which you can have several lines making 1000’s of rounds/day?
It is also down to costs of numbers.
1000’ of SAMPT will cost billions @ £2m each…..
1000’s of CAMM are doable at £100k [if manufacturered on a line flat out rather than slow to keep a line and skills]
Jonny boy! The math is ALLLL wrong.
A sky sabre system = 1x launcher, 1x command control, 1x radar
We have 6 systems. Therefore, we have 6 launchers, not 24 or any other mythical number you’ve made up out of sheer hope.
And you know this…how?
No a system consists of 4 launchers it’s published data.
Plus battery for Gibraltar?
Hi Jonathan.
Just to add, I believe 16RA, the Regiment that fields the Sky Sabre system, has 4 Fire Batteries, not 6.
Others perhaps are with 14 RA, which is the training outfit at the RSA at Larkhill to account for others.
I’m hoping to see participation in the Aquila and Twister programmes.
Yes however you play with the numbers its wholly inadequate. The powers to be are still thinking what minimum can we get away with instead of we will fund the minimum we actually need. Going on Ukraine and Presidential Trumps attitude to NATO I guess that’s many hundreds of launchers. Integrated air defence with EU when will learn our lessons? At times France and Germany are as reliable as a chocolate teapot ! Afghanistan , peacekeepers to Ukraine are but 2 examples. Biden/ Trump no better.
My most recent understanding was that we have five Sky Sabre systems, two of which are permanently based in the Falklands. The UK launcher vehicles don’t appear to have the EO masts seen on trials and export versions, so presumably have no reversionary local engagement capability.
I’ve had my differences with [the journal], and I haven’t finished the article; or posted to the “Twitter” feed of the journal, given that I do ⏤ but I get the idea that Britain, or the United Kingdom, as it were, has problems similar to the United States; given its capacity for involvement, and its myriad weapons systems. (On looking it over, the rest of the article appears as if it just consists of weapons-types that are presented as inclusive in the [arms] package and its constituent projects.)
Obviously what we need is something similar to the Israeli air defence system. If we get decent abm coverage for most of the UK it’ll be far better than the current near zero. “9 launchers” shows the MOD/HMG remains vastly incompetent. We need to start being honest & transparent rather than having muppets deliberately or too stupid to state the actual capabi;ities we have, as far as open source can go.
OT I’m sick of the BBC news channel covering Trumps speeches verbatum in full, displacing news bulleitins. It’s like the WW2 BBC broadcasting in full Hitler, Goebells & Lord Haw Haw. If Trump posted much of what he says on BBC comments he’s get his posts removed. “He’s not the Messiah, he’s just a very silly boy!”
I’m not sure it is obvious. Israel is attacked from next door territories on a regular basis: generally drones and small missiles. We want to defend ourselves from surprise attacks that will either be a ground launched intermediate range ballistic missile for Russia, or will come from an air-launched or maritime-launched attack. If the threat profile is so very different, why is it obvious that we need the same defence systems?
I cant see anything of significant increase or remotely new proposed with this report announcement. It feels to me like more political sound bites with very little substance to them.
9 Sky Sabres, could not cover the South East of England from attack, never mind the entire UK. It also will not shoot down ballistic missiles that leave earths atmosphere before coming at us directly from above. You know like the ones that Israel faced from Iran, that Sky Sabre, Type 45 Destroyers or any other weapons systems we have can defend against. But it’s OK we are upping our 40 mile range Sky Sabe System stock up to 9. So don’t worry, Whitehall is safe.
That’s not 9 launchers it’s 9 batteries.
Each Sky Sabre “system” has 4 launchers, one radar and one command/control vehicle.
So that would be a total of 36 launch vehicles.
So essentially the government is doing nothing. Sky Sabre is not developed to protect against ballistic missiles that leave earths atmosphere and approach directly from above., neither are any of the other mentioned solutions. This is hot air, the UK is defenceless from the kind of indiscriminate attacks Israel suffered from Iran . But its OK, let’s spend 4 times more a year housing migrants who enter the country illegally over that of our defence gap, which should be used to buy THAAD, of which the UK or BAE Systems has no equivalent to.
The USA can no longer be relied upon to fill those capability gaps, so I say to starmer and his governme t either defecate or get off the pot and let someone take control who will take their primary responsibility seriously, which is protect its citizens from both foreign and domestic enemies.
The UK is guarded from ballistic missile attack by SM3 batteries operated by NATO in Poland and Romania. Sky Sabre has nothing to do with ballistic missiles but it’s a vital system.
The UK is currently participating is sky shield which will further enhance ballistic missile protection however nothing can be put into motion until the defence review is complete
Utterly ridiculous.
Ukraine is fighting the next war – to stand a chance we have to copy what works in Ukraine……and it sure as shit isn’t 9 (with a few missing overseas) air defence systems.
It won’t be waves of bombers flying in from the Arctic, it’ll be shadow fleet tankers launching drone swarms and cruise missile submarines parked in the Atlantic.
We wouldn’t stand a chance.
I understand that Sky Sabre costs less than Patriot? If so, we need to order at least another dozen complete systems.
Protecting airbases and Faslane is fine, what about our power stations, Cities, Ports, Catterick etc?
What about air cover for a British expeditionary force….. because we certainly can’t rely on Trump.
We are woefully unprotected.
The Ukraine is fighting how it is out of necessity, not because that’s what works.
Drawing the wrong conclusions from this war will be as bad as drawing no conclusions.
Two times nothing is still nothing
No mention of extra E7 either…
Any news on CAMM-MR? Also do we know if CAMM-MR is able tackle SRBM’s?
No version of CAMM is designed to tackle SRBM’s. It might get lucky and hit one but it’s certainly not the intention of the system.
If you’re discussing the type of SRBM used in the Red Sea, CAMM-MR would probably be fine against small numbers, given that these SRBMs come in at angles and speeds not dissimilar from diving supersonic cruise missiles.
Really we need production lines churning out missile defence systems in vast quantities of all shapes and sizes.
…..and we need them yesterday.