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… Read more »
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.
Indeed no modern ‘system’ of this nature has only one launcher in normal operation. Joker’s list therefore that he uses to back up his notion in reality does nothing of the sort, due to his erroneous assumption in that regard. .
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.
I have made a FOI request:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sky_sabre
We shall see. I suspect you guys may be disappointed.
‘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.
Yup, with you on that one. If that’s what they mean. Fingers crossed. 🤞
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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.
I think the FG that was based in Poland finished Op’s last late year. The plan was for the FG to be deployed back to the UK.
Late last year* Excuse me.. Mixing my words up there.
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.
Daniele, either way, its still a pathetic amount to give the UK universal air defence coverage. Lets hope the Russians only bomb us with “penny numbers” of aircraft.
Hi Ernie.
Yes, it’s far too small.
Remember though, if the army deploys at scale these are not meant for the UK anyway. They’re for defence of the Field Army. We have no uk dedicated GBAD beyond some CUAS assets used by the RAF Regiment.
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.
It looks like Angela “no brainer” Rayner will be building even more houses if the Russians come!
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.
Javelin LML is ancient by todays standards, Stormers are being replaced with Thales RapidRangers mounted on VAMTACs. Lets them be underslung by helicopter and better augments light infantry.
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… Read more »
Just to note, again. The Army Sky Sabre system is NOT for UK home based or static defence. It is for the defence of the Field Army, in the field. The Lords statement on expanding to 9 is possibly linked to the rumours that a second Sky Sabre Regiment will form. That tallies with previous comments from the CGS, and with the NATO plan for a 2 Division British Army. So 1 Regiment can be allocated per Division. As noted many times, the UK home base has no dedicated GBAD at all beyond a tiny number of LMM and C-UAS… Read more »
Indeed and we do need that..but as you note sky sabre is a deployable system and it may be that for home defence of military and core civilian infrastructure we need a different system, that could be cheaper because I would not need the range or to be a robust on deployment as sky sabre systems.. Infact what you want is something you can have at every major base, power station, large regional hospital etc in big numbers that can be served by reservists. Infact this goes to my argument that we need a very robust civil defence program..you cannot… Read more »
Would you create a 4th “service” as it were for that? With less stringent physical and age requirements, solely for civil defence?
Aware of most of those hospital’s with the military links through the JHUs, but not Radcliffe or Cooks role?
Fixed air defence in the case of UK can be handled (in general) by RN (more T45 would have been good), & RAF. The advantage of T45 is that they are not actually fixed (so much harder to hit), but can do an equivalent job while being locally mobile. One of the advantages of being a group of islands. If you are Israel, your potential enemies are all land based, so you can’t get your ships between yourself & your attackers. Different countries have to have different options to suit their situation. Sky Sabre is intended to defend a mobile… Read more »
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… Read more »
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]
This subject is along the same vien as a project I have been working with for the last five years, but much, much cheaper. We could have tens of thousands of such systems for the price of one SAMPT. It was sent to Ukraine last summer and its having terrific effects. The company wanted to put together a low cost system to protect troops from drones. In the end, they came up with a 30/40/50mm automated platform that can precisely take down drones without the need to pepper some poor bugger in line of sight at the other end, or… Read more »
Sounds interesting – how does this compare with the EOS Slinger or the NG system with multiple Slingers controlled by a NG radar & control system?
The SAMP-T cost a lot per unit, only because it was ordered in small quantities. 700 units have recently been ordered with instruction to ramp up production and reduce unit costs. So I don’t think it will be that expensive. Additionaly, the number of batteries is increasing. So let’s see how to involve more UK. The CTA 40, 30mm, 20mm guns, and 12,7mm and 7,62mm machine guns are also part of the low end coverage against drones. They have proven effective in red sea and Ukraine. UK has CAMM missiles which are good, we have Mistral that work as well.… Read more »
@Ex-RoyalMarine
Please don’t hesitate to contact Lord Robertson who leads Strategic Defence Review with your insights into faster, cheaper solutions for GBAD.
Parliament website makes that easier..
I agree with you, Jim.
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.
I have made a FOI request:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sky_sabre
We shall see. I suspect you guys may be disappointed.
Good one.
Will clear it up once and for all.
Launcher numbers have been a major question mark from day one.
Considering you thought all our Stormer HVM had been given to Ukraine, and photos exist of Sky Sabre in Poland with multiple launchers, in a single Fire Group, I suggest you’re talking beyond what your knowledge allows….
I suspect that ‘Joker’ is a Russian Troll account.
Plus battery for Gibraltar?
Doubt it needs it. What’s actually there that needs GBAD coverage?
The runway has no aircraft.
The HMNB is minimal.
Rock Barracks is small.
The POL depot is i believe inside the rock.
Gibraltars value is in the intelligence area, located assets of which are not obvious to air attack.
You should cover our ABM radar too and our primary RAF and Naval Bases.
Plus the fact that anything trying to exit the Mediterranean has to go past Gibraltar or go via Suez Canal (which even by accident is easily closed).
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.
14 regt hold zero platforms. Training done at thorney, air defence is Artillery in name only. 16 regt sky sabre only has enough for one fire group of 6 launchers but splits this into 2 fire groups and rotates through deployments between Falklands and poland as a bty then hands that fleet over to the next. 12 regt hvm/lmm 6 stormers have been given to ukraine, leaving 6 in UK at high readiness, 6 in Estonia and 6 in Saudi for deployments. More platforms are needed for 16 regt 9 launchers is not enough 12 regt need a stormer replacement… Read more »
That all sounds about right. Lots of talk about GBAD but not sure it’s actually translated into extra kit. Don’t forget Sky Sabre was the answer to the GBAD-FI project, only intended to replace Rapier in the South Atlantic. While there are 4 Sky Sabre batteries they won’t all have a full scaling of equipment. There will be 2 or 3 fleets to allow for operations down south, training in the UK and an allowance for repairs etc. wouldn’t be surprised if 9 launchers is an uplift. The batteries will rotate through the Falklands, so you need 4 sets of… Read more »
Are those Stormer dets at Battery or Troop level?
Are you saying 12s 4 Stormer Batteries have just 6 each?
Nearly all equipment is managed as at fleet level and allocated out as needed. Just because you have 4 Stormer batteries doesn’t mean they all have their own vehicles in the hangar.
They will get allocated out as needed.
Yes 4 stormer batteries each have 2 firegroups/ troops which ideally would have 6 stormers each so 48 for regt, but in reality it has only 18 and 12 of them are abroad. THALES does have extra for spares and repairs but not many. Those that they do have are in a terrible state try to get a full FG out the door and guaranteed 2 will break down either leaving the hanger or shortly after. The crew often complain of monoxide poisoning symptoms aswell so sooner the that bit of junk get replaced the better hopefully that RwIP from… Read more »
Ben.
That’s shocking if correct. Where have they gone there were many many more?
Don’t forget the vital intelligence nodes and logistics, munitions hubs.
They need defending as much as the 3 HMNBs and the key RAF Stations.
Without them, defence fails.
I’m hoping to see participation in the Aquila and Twister programmes.
So do I, a great area of cooperation with our dear UK friends. Take good care!
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.
Its EO masts are telescoping, are you sure they’ve not just been retracted? It’d be a shame if we really don’t have them.
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… Read more »
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?
Obvious because it is unacceptable to be so vulnerable to such a surprise attack.
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.
I have made a FOI request:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sky_sabre
We shall see. I suspect you guys may be disappointed.
Smartest thing I think we could do is just see into service SAMP/T or develop a ground-based Sea Viper Evolution. AQUILA or another dedicated ABM would be lovely to get though expensive, if there’s budget there then get it land-based then sea-based, though prioritize SAMP/T or ground-based Sea Viper Evolution. On guns, the Jackals/Coyotes and trucks can get the Terrahawk or RiWP with 30mm, and RapidFire 40mm. Also consider seeing into service a Skyranger30 module for the Boxer, and maybe give the base boxer APC a 30x173mm RWS. Think the RiWP but no RS6 since it can only take 30x113mm.… Read more »
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… Read more »
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
No the SM 3 systems in Poland and Romania would not protect the UK.. 1) It would simply fire them from the North 2) the apogee of an IRBM is far far greater than SM3 and they could simply launch in a way to slingshot over the Central European SM3 systems From a physics point of view the only way to protect the UK from IRBMs is to have SM3 or Arrow 3 launchers in either norway, northern France ( for the south) or the Uk. Systems anywhere else can be easily avoided by using a northern attack across the… Read more »
We paid the heavy price of European freedom from dictatorship last century and thought that Democracy was a consensus of Shared Values. It seems that Education is key to making good decisions within a Democracy and that the poorly educated can be mislead so are vulnerable to dictatorship. The Republican party has a record against Education so deliberately works against public education for their advantage. The Democrat party didn’t prevent that. USA is unreliable. We must take the initiative in European NATO command to send the American staff home and lead for the interests of all European people. There can… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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.
USA is unreliable.
We must take the initiative in European NATO command to send the American staff home and lead for the interests of all European people. There can be no influence for a country that will not contribute, especially no veto for USA.
They said they won’t support Article 5 so European NATO countries will take that duty and decide what security guarantees will be given to Ukraine.
We already started with Joint Expeditionary Force and Advanced Forward Presence.
🇸🇪🇳🇴🇩🇰🇫🇮🇪🇪🇱🇻🇱🇹🇳🇱🇬🇧🇩🇪
Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦
Slava Heroyam 🇺🇦
#WeAreNATO #vpdfo
Two times nothing is still nothing
No mention of extra E7 either…
The Boeing 737 Max crisis has prevented operators of earlier 737 versions, suitable for E7 conversion, doing the upgrade to Max. Thus both price and availability are against UK MoD being able to get the two required at an acceptable price.
If only there was a loyal UK operator looking to dump dreadful Boeing for Airbus 321 so willing to pass on their 737s. Unfortunately most are leased by finance companies who aren’t know for their loyalty to anything but turning a profit. If only they valued the peace and stability that enables their business..
The best (only practical) 737 E7 conversion options are 737 BBJ versions (737-700 but with the wings & undercarriage of the 737-800). BBJ stands for Boeing Business Jet – ie they are not normal air liners. This severely limits the availability compared to commercial jets used by normal airliners that may be looking at 737 MAX.
In case I was not clear, E7 is based off the 737 BBJ version that is a commercial 737-700 / 737-800 hybrid (intended for business / VIP use – not airliner use). P8 is based off the 737-800. Neither of these are available from Boeing commercial anymore. You want one, Boeing Defence will happily supply a new E7 (or P8) from their military supply line (once you get past USAF, NATO etc). Note: Australia E7’s are (were) all new build. But, RAAF also have 2 x 737 BBJ for VIP use. UK needs 2 more 737 BBJ for cheap E7… Read more »
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.
Yes agree, these missiles are closer to artillery than true guided weapons. But it’s certainly not designed for this and a blast fragmentation warhead is far from ideal when dealing with ballistic missiles.
I wonder how CAMM-MR will turn out. If it could be developed with even a degree of built-in ABM capability, similar to that of Aster-30 Block 1 or even PAC-3 Patriot, it might be enough for it to edge out Aster as the RN’s principle medium-range interceptor. Indeed, for the majority of situations, the difference in capability between the two missiles will likely be negligible. If the CAMM-MR could also be produced cheaply and in the UK then that would be another point in its favour.
Really we need production lines churning out missile defence systems in vast quantities of all shapes and sizes.
…..and we need them yesterday.
Hopefully Samp/T order about to be placed for 8-9 batteries. That will ensure the UK has a viable GBAD system able to protect large areas of the UK.
Samp/T being mobile is a superior solution to a static defence system and the parked up sites can be prepared now having been selected by computer to ensure excellent radar performance and ability to cleanse and protect their locations. Cost per battery €500 million. Which is a bit of a bargain considering performance is equivalent to a type 45 destroyer.
Agree, the new Italian radar Kronos Grand is very impressive and should be compatible with CAMM as well. We can get a land based T45 which should suit all our needs.
Ideally the UK should have been investing in the Aquila Missile early (which BAE are part of). If not that an Arrow 3 system.
Why a land based T45 against a sea based one? Any missile hitting UK has to cross the sea (advantage of being an island based nation). A fixed land based T45 means the opposition knows exactly where to target. The greatest advantage of the navy is its ships can move. Massive over the horizon land based radars exist. But they can’t control missiles. They are used to warn all those that can.
SAM for the UK mainland is best deployed to coastal sites as you do not want the collision debris or burned out boosters, falling on built up areas.
The brutal truth John is that matters less that the cruise missiles or ballistic missiles hitting their targets…a bit of debris scattered in a housing estate with a couple of people killed is awful…but a cruise missile with a 1000kg warhead hitting say the Queen Elizabeth hospital would be catastrophic. If we get into a peer war we are going to face a lot of catastrophic events and the awful ones will not even register.
The Nightingale hospital set up for Covid?
Could similar be created so it could be moved and less vulnerable to missile attack as hidden, not fixed?
And could such provide Role 4?
Not really to be honest. The nightingale hospitals were not really hospitals they were single purpose profoundly limited and essentially a bit wrong headed most of us thought they were a bit bonkers , they were essentially designed to have rows of people in induced comas on ventilation with almost no other medical intervention ( I got in trouble by calling them controlled death centres on a call with NHSE). what we actually did was up the ITU capacity within actual hospitals because that’s the only way you can do it.. acute hospitals are vastly complex organisms with profoundly significant… Read more »
Thanks…..Ok….wish I’d not asked!
Whether its a suicide drone, a cruise or a ballistic missile, it still has to come over the coast to strike inland. So the coast is a good spot for GBAD/SAM. That includes basing a few miles inland, as the debris/boosters will still fall into the sea.
All the differing opinions on this will certainly confuse any Russian intelligence officer trying to work out what they are facing. But that’s totally irrelevant. We will be attacked if we are perceived as weak. The quickest way to avoid looking weak is for the politicians to say how much they are going to spend to meet the threat posed by Russia. Then the professionals in the armed forces can spend the money in the best way to defend us. My two pennyworth of input though, is that we must defend nuclear power stations and other nuclear sites as hitting… Read more »
I understand it is 2.5% by 2030. Trump has called for 5%…
We really need the sort of spending we saw in the cold war. Also as kit gets more sophisticated you need it in place before any conflict that means the last minute is no longer enough.
2.5% GDP by 2027 Starmer announced, 2.75% GDP by 2030 Lord Robertson said to Defence Select Committee on the SDR plan of HM Treasury. Mr Rutte, Secretary General of NATO talks about 3.5% GDP as the new target, presumably because he knows 5% GDP is not feasible for the rate of change acceptable to taxpayers of NATO. Clearly the case for change must be made and FSB misinformation operations defeated so there is political will to do what’s required. The Peace Dividend delusion has allowed politicians to safeguard their electoral prospects by shifting Defence spending to social provision and even… Read more »
What a load of tosh. Nine systems? what does that mean? Does the House of Lords clown know what he is actually talking about? The army wants the CAAM-ER as soon as possible, and the Royal Navy have expressed a strong interest in getting their hands on CAAM-MR as soon as possible. Then we need to upgrade to the Aster 30 1NT without delay. Will this happen? Under Labour nothing will happen, except some real cuts to the services.
We must keep money back to pay for the migrants after all.
All RAF active airfields should have system (Bzn/Mrm/Wad/Con/Los/Mon & Akt) plus 2 deployable. RN should have 1 each for Devonport/Portsmouth & Clyde plus 2-3 deployable with RM. Army should have dozen min
Don’t forget the logistics and intelligence hubs. Destroy them and it’s goodnight.
Best you don’t read Js detail on hospitals!
I would suggest NASAMs and Gravehawks all round but both depend on having an AIM-9, AIM120 etc. Stockpile, which seems unlikely after 25 years of HM Treasury hollowing out, and any donations to Ukraine.
So where is the capacity for manufacturing sufficiently capable missiles in huge numbers?
Doesn’t this go back to Industrial Strategy, a long term commitment to suppliers that they can build that capacity for?
Logically an output of the SDR (what) is the Industrial Strategy (how). At least a follow on action.