A new low-cost surface-to-air missile being developed with European allies will initially be fielded with a minimum deployable capability before being upgraded through successive improvements, according to a written parliamentary answer from Defence Minister Luke Pollard.
Responding to Conservative MP James Cartlidge, Pollard said the project is progressing under the Low-cost Air Defence Effector programme within the NATO-aligned LEAP initiative announced in February.
“The new weapon system will be introduced through the spiral acquisition model, delivering a Minimum Deployable Capability followed by iterative enhancements,” Pollard said.
The programme is currently moving into the industrial selection stage, where proposals from industry will be assessed. “The low-cost air defence effector project under the LEAP initiative… is now entering the international industrial selection phase,” he said.
Pollard also confirmed that the system has not yet been given an official name. “No project name has yet been allocated and the name of the weapon system will depend on which proposal is taken forward into production,” he said.
The concept demonstration phase is now beginning, and the final designation will only be decided once a specific design has been selected for production.
The project is intended to deliver a new generation of lower-cost air defence weapons designed to counter large numbers of airborne threats, including drones and missiles, while easing pressure on more expensive interceptor systems currently used by NATO forces.
I could see a role for an IR seeker missile to complement CAMM very much in the same way Ukraine has been firing ASRAAM from the ground. However it’s still likely to be expensive.
It seems much better to have drones hunting drones and missiles hunting missiles and aircraft.
The US Coyote missile seems to be the best example so far deployed.
The problem here is context or should I say the requirement. Yes we want a low cost surface to air missile (SAM). But crucially what is it designed to counter or intercept. The piece above only describes being able to counter large numbers of airborne threats. Which could be anything from small quad copter drones up to ballistic missiles and everything in between. The target set or what the missile will be designed to intercept, will determine the missile’s required performance, the type of seeker it needs, its ability to counter jamming and countermeasures. Which then determines its cost.
For example if this is to only counter slow speed drones. i.e. ones that cruise at speeds less than 300mph. Do you really need a rocket motor or can it be propelled by a propeller system? So long as the weapon has a higher overtake speed it can be used as an interceptor. Clearly it would be advantageous to have a very small time to intercept. Which then determines how the SAM is going to be used. Is it going to be for point, local or area defence? As this will determine how big the missile needs to be, to house the fuel/batteries/engine. However against simple drones you could use commercially off the shelf components, such as a Raspberry Pi for the ECU, a camera and lidar used in a mobile phone for the seeker, along with a 3D printed body, powered by a Lithium battery pack driving a set of RC plane motors and servos. Along with a small plastic explosive fragmented charge. This would put it in a similar cost bracket as the drones it would be up against.
However, the Government’s press release says that the Low-Cost Effectors & Autonomous Platforms (LEAP) initiative: “Its first focus will be on a new surface-to-air weapon – a lightweight, affordable weapon designed to counter the drone and missile threat.” As soon as they say missile threat, that also opens up a whole load of new questions, such as what type of missile threat, subsonic, supersonic, hypersonic or ballistic?
The Martlet (LMM) has already be proven by Ukraine, to be capable of taking out drones very easily, but also shown to be able to intercept subsonic cruise missiles. However, it will be very hard and nigh on impossible to intercept anything travelling faster than Mach 1.5, unless its heading directly towards the launcher.
So perhaps, the spin on this is that the LEAP is not just one effector, but a number of or a family of effectors. That use more commercially off the shelf components, rather than costly bespoke components.
Are we buying some in 2031, just like the rest of everthing that will be ready by then. We can talk about it, window shop, give it a fancy project name and do nothing else, state normal. Its fine every thing will be ready, and in service by 2031 the Government love that date as its after the next election, not thier problem.
“Minimum deployable capability”
Is that in performance or in minimum number of assets fielded?
If it’s the former, ok.
If it’s the latter, is that a way of saying we won’t be buying many and it’s left to the next government?
Whatever, at aome point the many dozens of military key points will need defending, even if this is only aimed at low performance Drones.
Performance, but with this to be improved upon with each “spiral”.
Spiral is a form of iterative development.
Thanks.
Yes, thanks makes sense.