The Ministry of Defence has announced a £118 million purchase of six Land Ceptor missile launchers, a move that will double the British Army’s deployable Sky Sabre air defence systems.
The contract with manufacturer MBDA is expected to support up to 140 jobs across the UK, particularly at the company’s Bolton facility, which already employs 1,300 people and announced 700 new roles earlier this year.
According to the Ministry of Defence, the new equipment will “bolster national security and defence” while also contributing to economic growth under the government’s Plan for Change.
Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard MP said the acquisition was part of a wider effort to implement the Strategic Defence Review. “Doubling our deployable Sky Sabre capability will strengthen the UK’s air defences, protect UK forces abroad, and deter our adversaries,” he said. “Through this investment we are supporting over 100 jobs across the UK, with more to come. We are implementing the government’s Plan for Change with defence as an engine to drive growth, boosting our industrial capacity and national prosperity.”
The Sky Sabre system is designed to intercept fast jets, drones, and cruise missiles. It can guide up to 24 missiles simultaneously to strike separate targets, and officials say it is so accurate it can hit a tennis ball-sized object moving at twice the speed of sound.
The Army recently tested the system at the QinetiQ range in the Outer Hebrides during NATO’s Exercise Formidable Shield, marking the first live firing of Sky Sabre in the UK. The system has also been deployed in Poland under Operation Stifftail to bolster NATO’s eastern defences.
Chris Allam, Managing Director of MBDA UK, welcomed the deal, describing Land Ceptor as “an excellent example of the innovative capability that this partnership has produced and delivered to the British Army.” He added: “Building these weapon systems has been a key part of our growth at our Bolton site and this contract helps us to sustain this expansion going forward.”
Lieutenant Colonel James Boutle, commanding officer of 16th Regiment Royal Artillery, which operates the system, said Sky Sabre marked “a step change in the UK’s ground-based air defence capability.” He added: “It provides a powerful shield against modern airborne threats, from fast jets to precision-guided weapons and drones. As part of this, we work hand-in-hand with industry partners such as MBDA here in the UK to continuously optimise the system to ensure it remains on the cutting edge – a collaboration that guarantees we stay ahead of adversary technology.”
The government said the three-year contract is part of its wider £1 billion commitment to strengthening homeland air and missile defence.
This is six iLauncher vehicles, right?
There’s no way six fire groups costs that little.
A very sensible purchase either way.
According to Janes that’s for 6 launchers.
But there’s also a separate contract been awarded for:
• 12 fire unit support vehicles for ammunition
• 8 vehicles for baggage, and
• 8 threat evaluation and weapon assignment systems
• plus spares to support Land Ceptor and Sky Sabre systems.
Yes this is what’s causing all the confusion, the MBDA contract(£118million) only covers launchers, radars and everything else is another contract. The UK previously bought 10 Giraffe Radars from SAAB but only had 7 Rafael SAMOC. (2018)
It’s announced that we are buying a further 8 “threat evaluation and weapon assignment units” (Rafael SAMOC) presumably.
This all suggest that we are doubling the number of deployable units from 6 to 12 with a total number of 15 SAMOC’s being purchased (presume three Spair)
Whether these units are called batteries or systems is irrelevant. What matters is how many can be deployed separately, so that’s now 12 which seems pretty good especially if combined with a small number of larger ABM systems like SAMP/T or Patriot which i suspect will be coming as well later in the year.
This also shows just how cost effective CAMM is especially with the CAMM MR upgrade, truly world class system for those prices that can reach out to 100KM with cheap IR guidance missiles. And cost matters more now than ever. We can’t be firing expensive radar seeker missiles like Aster 30 or SM 3 at propeller powered drones.
Hi Jim, I agree that 12 deployable standalone batteries/systems is a pretty good number for the size of our deployable forces- which is what these are really for. It’d be nice to see more spares, to cover potential losses, but it is what it is.
I’m guessing that the successful engagements in the Red Sea with Sea Ceptor were a valuable stamp of approval in getting these signed and over the line.
Hopefully getting some CMM MR online- although I’ve not seen anything on updates as to how that programme is going… Agree also that this needs to be part of a layered defence- SAMP/T seems the obvious choice given the match up with Sea Viper, but the latest Block 1NT needs to be bought to give close to the same capability of Patriot…
Almost £20 million each seems really expensive for what is essentially an MLRS system. I’d like to see the contract and what else is included, those quoted prices are rarely just the unit cost of the equipment.
Hopefully this is a sign of more things to come as part of the SDR process. Doubling the number of sky-sabre systems is very welcome especially when combined in the near future with CAMM MR which is going to give the system a significantly better performance closer to Aster and more of a theatre air defence capability but at a much reduced cost.
Hopefully we can now buy something else that can provide ABM defence. I think Arrow 3 now has to be off the table given Israel’s threats to sanction Germany.
Aster 30 NT is probably not up to the task so THAAD or SM3 is probably the only choice.
It will only take one unfriendly incursion to speed up UK air defence, which is currently inadequate for the task. This new system appears to rectify the situation, but time is of the essence.
Hope that’s put a small smile on your face this morning, Danielle
Confusion.
We’ve discussed this many times over the years.
There is confusion over how many launchers and what constitutes “a system” as reports say we purchased onlyb6 systems.
I had a system as comprising several launchers, plus FC vehicles and radar.
Further, the 4 batteries of 16RA are reportedly spilt into 2 Fire Groups each, and each FG has both launchers, radar, FC Vehicle.
If buying just 6 Launchers doubles the capability, that makes little sense unless the FG report was wrong and this was more wafer thin than thought.
Could just be a bit of MoD spin to make the purchase sound larger than it is?
The Sky Sabre system is modular. So you can network a number of “systems” together to create a wider SAM umbrella. So long as the truck launchers have a working data-link they can be many miles away from the command unit. But I agree the context is not all that clear. Are they talking about creating a new complete system, i.e. 4 to 6 launch vehicles, command centre and radar unit, or are they expanding the number of launch vehicles within an existing group?
Morning Davey.
Exactly.
My info was 2 or 3 launchers per Fire Group.
Which makes 16 or 24 launchers in the 4 Fire Batteries.
One poster here, who only posted the once here last year, insisted there are only 6 launchers! Total.
Where other reports describe 6 “Systems” with numbers within vague.
What did Labour vow when coming to power?
“More transparency”
Right.
The shell game smoke and mirrors has got so bad now they won’t even detail a purchase.
This is from a useful Reddit comment.
The article says:
The Ministry of Defence has announced a £118 million purchase of six Land Ceptor missile launchers, a move that will double the British Army’s deployable Sky Sabre air defence systems.
but the government announcement just says:
The UK is doubling the number of deployable Sky Sabre systems operated by the Armed Forces in a drive to reinforce our air defences.
And I suspect that the UK Defence Journal author has gotten slightly mixed up and interpreted a restatement of the intention to double Sky Sabre as an assertion that it is doubled through this purchase.
Lots of confusion between what constitutes a battery and a system, chat gpt also sights confusion. It’s largely irrelevant as what is interesting is how many self contained systems can be deployed. Best way to know that is count Radars and control units as one or more launchers can be tasked.
To defend the UK logistics hubs in Odesa 😉
I would have been happy if they order 20 X times this number.
We have 3 large naval bases to protect, 7 major RAF sites, 8 Nuclear power stations, 5 major army hubs which all deserve an operating AA battery of this quality, never mind any other number of other sites like GCHQ and London with it’s clusters of key sites, like MI5 and parliament.
It would be a game changer if they did this, with not every site needing a full 6 X vehicle battery but london I guess needing multiple batteries.
Exactly Iain, six only sounds ridiculously small! If just CAMM wheres CAMM-MR at? Why just for the Army? What about some mobile Vshorad like Germany, who are ordering 500+ of the Boxer Skyranger with 30mm and Stinger, that could be adapted to tske Starstreak/LMM? Being mobile it could easily be used across ports, bases and Army.
CAMM-MR is in development. It’ll be a couple of years at least before it enters service.
There is a belief that NASAMS makes sense for RAF fighter bases as they already handle AMRAAM. Each NASAMS battery is $220m. Four bases, Lossiemouth, Conningsby, Marham, Akrotiri. So $880m.
AMRAAM is being phased out – it’d make little sense. There’s also the issue of going American/Norwegian when a British equivalent exists.
These aren’t for defending sites in the UK, this is a common misconception that Mainstream Media is only reinforcing.
These are deployable assets that are to be used to protect our forces abroad- specifically our battlegroup in Lithuania, as well as the deployment in Poland as mentioned in this article. They are in far more need of a decent AD bubble than sites in the UK.
Exactly.
And yet reading the article HMG are saying
“The government said the three-year contract is part of its wider £1 billion commitment to strengthening homeland air and missile defence.”
Homeland.
That is surely being economical with the truth. 16RA and 12 RA are units of the Field Army to defend the Field Army when it is deployed. That primarily means 3 UK Division in Eastern Europe.
Are they moving the goalposts now and widening 16 RAs remit?
So where will these actually be deployed and when?
Seems like far to few to actually be a credible defence, significantly more stress needed – or are they just defending London
Unlikely that any Army AD systems will be used in Infrastructure defence, they’ll be used as Corps Assets protecting our Divisions which will be in considerably more danger closer to the front.
Exactly, mentioned this so many times. There were events like the Olympics and G7 meeting but I think they were very much the exception to the rule.
Agreed, can get tiresome. I read a Sky News article about this purchase this morning too- asking the question “does this make Britain safer” or something along those lines. It obviously came to the conclusion that the system doesn’t have the range to cover the whole UK, and there aren’t enough of them to cover all key sites and cities.
They are mobile units so they will be deployed where ever they are needed in a time of war, that might be at an RAF base in the UK if we are under attack or near 1 Division HQ in Estonia if we are fighting the Russians.
The only place it might make sense to deploy them permanently is at Lossiemouth, Coningsby and Marham
Nothing else makes sense, you can’t have live SAM batteries in the middle of Portsmouth or Plymouth and if your worried about cruise missiles at Faslane the Terrain makes CAMM all but useless.
At Akritoni you need an ABM system not just point air defence,
Even at the airbases according to RUSI using simple concrete shelters to store aircraft which we already do is a better way to protect against drones and if your worried about high end cruise missiles then it’s better to just build lots of dummy shelters as smart weapon are expensive and you need one per shelter.
“The only place it might make sense to deploy them permanently is at Lossiemouth, Coningsby and Marham”
Disagree there mate. One takes out the handful of logistics and slightly larger number of DM ( Defence Munitons ) sites in the UK and what use are the forces then?
Many more places need covering by some sort of AD system than just those 3, but yes maybe GBAD needs to include other systems as well, including AA gun systems for cheaper Drones.
On the concrete shelters, you’re talking HAS. There are more HAS sitting empty in the UK at airfields we no longer use for Fast Air than in use.
And even at the in use locations, Coningsby, Marham, Lossimouth, I believe that not all aircraft can be covered. There are 4 Sqns of Typhoon at Lossi alone. With just 2 HAS sites. Do they take 2 aircraft each?
And never mind Fast Air. At Lossi many billions of pounds of P8s are lined up in a neat line on parade.
As far as I can work it out, I think it means we will now have 2 Sky Sabre batteries, each with 6 SAM launchers. Right or wrong?
Sky Sabre is replacing Rapier, which was withdrawn two or three years ago. There were IIRC 4 Rapier batteries of 6 launchers. If so, it means we now have half a short-range air defence regiment.
It is a painfully slow and pitifully small replacement process. I understand that first call on the artillery budget was upgrading and increasing the number of GMLRS. With that about done, Sky Sabre is the next carriage on the train, so don’t understand why MOD is only announcing 6 launchers rather than 12, 18 or 24. Are we really so strapped for cash?
I think it’s 3 Batteries. 2 deployable and 1 divided between BSFAI and Stifftail.
It’s 12 individual systems.
Each system being of ?
X number of launchers. I thought 3.
Radar.
FC vehicle.
Supporting vehicles.
Wrong, I think….!
I had 4 Fire Batteries within 16 RA –
11 ( Sphinx )
32 ( Minden )
30 Battery ( Rogers Company )
14 ( Coles Cop )
Plus –
20 HQ Battery
REME Wkshp
and the JAPPLE unit,
There is also 47 ( Inkerman ) Battery, part of the wider 7 ADG I think rather than 16 RA.
Dern thinks only 3, and that may be right. Dern is also correct in that one of the Batteries, on rotation, picked up the BFSAI commitment ( 1 Fire Group ) and also the Stifftail commitment in Poland ( 1 Fire Group ) but I understand that has now ended.
Agree on numbers. It was widely reported that CGS stated that “MRAD to double” so if we only had 6 launchers and these new 6 double that we are really in the do dos. If it is 6 more “Systems” then that is better of course.
Somebody tell Danielle that they’ve finally started ordering things!
In all seriousness, I wonder if this precludes an investment in greater capability for the Sky Sabre system in the autumn. CAMM-ER has long been speculated.
Hi Leh.
Daniele, please. I’m not female! 😉
Massive apologies, that’s my autocorrect doing its usual routine.
Mate. I’m not offended, never have been. It’s just tiresome in that it is an ongoing thing, that my parents spelled my name this way, the Italian of Daniel, and people ( and blasted autocorrect! ) get confused by it!
I think it’s great that we’ve ordered these, I just hope it’s part of a bigger improvement to our defences. As far as I’m aware we still have no balistic missile protection in the UK (other than parking up a type 45 next to any target)
A nudge in the right direction, but a sprint is needed.
It’s a step in the right direction, a single faltering step, but it is positive news for once.
Now make them all ER and double the number again!
Thats about one launcher for every 16000 sq miles of the UK.
Worse. These are not for home defence.
Nice start, good to see, but is that just launchers or the full C3 ? seems a bit cheap if it includes the radar and control systems, Any extra is over due and very welcome. Wonder if the UK will buy any long range AD? Not seen much on that yet.
Two good news stories in one day, my heart!
My two penn’orth. I believe the UK currently has 6 batteries (fire control plus an indeterminate number of launchers – usually assumed to be 4 launchers). Two batteries are currently deployed (Poland & Falklands) so, if these 6 launchers will “double deployed batteries”, then they must be intended to form 2 batteries, but additional fire control vehicles will be required (or maybe we already own them/ they will be ordered seperately)
That would give us 8 batteries (which would seem to co-incide with another order that required 8 vehicles for baggage, plus 8 threat evaluation and weapon assignment systems