Thales in the UK has been awarded a contract by the Ministry of Defence to continue work on the Mounted Short Range Air Defence (MSHORAD) programme.
The contract, signed with Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), extends the programme’s assessment phase and supports further development of technologies intended to replace the Army’s current Stormer High Velocity Missile Self-Propelled system.
The MSHORAD programme is part of a wider effort to modernise the Army’s layered air defence network in response to evolving aerial threats, including drones, missiles and low-flying aircraft.
According to Thales, the contract will support the next stage of work to define future system requirements and capabilities. “This contract supports the next phase of development for future MSHORAD capabilities and modernisation of the British Army’s ground-based air defence suite,” the company said.
The programme will ultimately replace the Stormer HVM SP platform, which currently provides the Army’s mounted short-range air defence capability.
Stormer HVM vehicles, armed with Thales’ StarStreak missile system, entered British Army service in the 1990s and were designed to counter fast, low-flying aerial threats such as attack helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.
The system has remained in service for decades and continues to provide the Army with a mobile air defence capability able to accompany manoeuvre forces.
“The Stormer HVM SP system, featuring Thales’ StarStreak missile, entered service with the British Army in the 1990s to counter threats from pop-up helicopters and fixed wing aircraft,” the company noted.
However, the Ministry of Defence is now seeking to replace the system to meet modern battlefield requirements. The future MSHORAD capability will form part of the Army’s broader Ground Based Air Defence architecture, which aims to provide layered protection against a wide range of aerial threats.
Is that the sound of a can being kicked down the road i hear????
So now we are going to study the study?
😁👎🇬🇧 oh so true !
Here we go again talk talk 🙄
We’re ranked really high on defence spending in the world, but we seem to have hardly anything to show for it. What do we actually spend our money on? You’d think we’d have some of the most advanced MSHORAD in the world. I know we spend money on a nuclear deterrence, but I’m starting to think we put a lot things under ‘defence spending’ that can’t actually be used in a conventional war.
Nuclear capability, from AWE to new warheads.
AUKUS, including billions handed to industry to expand and update infrastructure.
GCAP. Same, tens of billions. How many aircraft do we bet the RAF may end up with for the outlay?
Pensions.
Chagos payments. Someone told me the FCDO pay, I’d like to see the proof?
Afghan rehoming. Over 1 billion.
SSN decommissioning.
The SIA will shortly be added as well, around 4 billion.
Ukraine ops payments, billions.
Equipment “support” from memory around 10 billion. Not in buying, but supporting. So, basically a huge subsidy to the MIC.
Then the expected wages, fuel costs, infrastructure maintenance costs.
Incompetence, as billions lost in failed programs.
R&D, ring fenced.
The % spent on buying equipment and recruiting more personnel to expand a stretched, hollowed out military that HMG use as either a piggy bank or a political football in their world stage grandstanding is minimal.
Beware when a politician says how much is spent on “Defence.” Defence has many heads, and the military isn’t their priority in it.
Willy waving as a nuclear power, so politics, and industry, so jobs, are.
One look at the varied tweets recently from the MoD about the 23 NMH purchase, talking endlessly about the jobs at yeovil and how wonderful it all is, but not a peep about military capability nor how long the RAF are now without any medium heli lift, tells you all you need to know.
We could spend most of our budget on all OTS kit, have lots more assets, but no defence industry. And that also would be wrong.
There must be a balance between industry and OTS for me.
Daniele, Great list covering what ‘can’t actually be used in a conventional war.’ Service pensions could be added and military aid to Ukraine and buying back service housing from Annington Homes and I think some non-Defence Intelligence is covered by the Defence Vote (I heard that some years ago but have no evidence). Legal fees and compensation claims for various things that go wrong in the HR domain.
You should have said micro willy waving !
Decades of not doing anything and outsourcing everything has meant stuff has aged and older gear is more expensive to maintain.
That combined with the budget being so heavily cut in recent years. Making long term procurment decision impossible as never know what money will be available year to year.
Saying that we have a lot of good kit, just capability gaps caused by the 2010 defence review are now coming to roost.
Great yet more talk, projects etc etc, its always the same nothing ordered just more time wasted doing a lot of nothing, State normal, when will it ever change?
Good job we didn’t have this a Govt in 1938. Report into the Hawker Hart replacement. Initial Operational Viability Committee in early stages of recruitment from Gentlemen’s Clubs throughout London, sadly two potential Chairmen are unable to fulfil their initial commitment due to clashes with the hunting season. However once recruited and stocks of suitable Brandy provided it will decide progress matters on the next stage of the Supermarine Spitfire and Hawker Hurricane development schedule, to report back circa 1941. This will decide upon whether they should have 4, 8 machine guns or alternatively build delayed till cannon specifications become clearer and some of the older members informed as to why muzzleloaders won’t be optimal. More importantly it is not yet clear what paint scheme they should have though it should be noted shades of brown are undergoing extensive testing and once determined by the Paint Committee and passed on to the IVC Committee (once constituted) with paint quantise per aircraft determined and ordered with any added pigment costs taken into consideration, number of aircraft can then be budgeted for in any initial order to be delivered no later that November 1943 for extensive paint durability testing purposes in coordination with similar camouflage efforts in France through a joint compatibility scheme. It should be noted however this contract is open to change and in no way commits the Air Ministry to a production contract with either contractor as their are alternative products from Germany that it is intended to take part in a competitive fly off before any final decision (probably by the Fighter Competitive Evaluation Committee) is made and referred to the relevant Future Monoplane Finance Committee to consider once the Govt DIP is published though as this may be further delayed due the Army’s Crusader Tank having serious developmental issues, no current timeframe can be determined. Parliament can be reassured however that by 1948 we should be able to faze out our biplane fighter force many of which have already been gifted to Poland.