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.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

122 COMMENTS

  1. 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…

        • CAMM MR is going to be way bigger than standard CAMM, so no guarantee that it’ll be an easy/cheap modification to make the systems compatible. Even the CAMM ER (which isn’t as long ranged as the MR variant) is a full metre longer than the standard CAMM (3.2m vs 4.2m).

          • CAMM-ER still fits on the iLauncher though, would be a good purchase to easily boost the defended area of our GBAD.

        • Patriot might not be such a great buy now. The Russians have been using their experience in attacking Ukraine to make upgrades to their ballistic missiles to increase their ability to manoeuvre. As a result the number of intercepts that Patriots are now making has fallen dramatically.

          • Chances are those advancements also affect SAMP/T. In some ways you want the system that has gone through the trial and iteration by fire.

            It was be a massive gamble to procure a system that’s never even tried to intercept a Russian missile.

            • SAMP/T is in operation in Ukraine, defending Kyiv. It definitely has experience in defending against Russian missile strikes.

          • There are two main reasons for the reduced interception rate. One is the fact that most Russian missiles did not have the manoeuvring tech fitted, as it significantly reduces accuracy but more do now (accuracy is not a problem when your main aim is terror). This is not, therefore, an innovation on the part of the Russians – more just an increased use of existing tech. The second is that the latest/newest interceptors used by the Ukrainians were always limited in number, and are largely depleted, so they are relying on older versions of the interceptors. These two factors combined mean fewer interceptions. Of course, the Russians may also have made some tech improvements, but they are using Donkeys and Lada minivans as supply vehicles, so I would caution against giving them too much credit.

            • Go to the War Zone, August 14th, article titled “Ukraine’s Patriots Now Struggling To Intercept Enhanced Russian Ballistic Missiles”

              I tried to post a link but the site didn’t like it…

              • Thanks mate. As an aside, spock was my nickname for a while. Then I found out I was autistic and it all made sense.

          • Patriot also has some limitations its radars are not 360 so it has arcs unlike the ASTER based SAM-T that is 360. I also think the ASTER missile is more agile than the Patriot missiles. We should buy ASTER block 1 then upgrade to 1NT when available. Tge is an ABM block 2 in development.

          • I don’t believe that at all. Ukraine has a very finite number of patriot, it cannot defend against every single missile thrown its way.

            • Some people don’t believe the earth is a globe either. Your choice, but I have facts reported in a news article on a reputable news-site whereas, whereas you have your bowl movements to go in… 🤷🏻‍♂️

  2. 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.

      • You keep mentioning CAMM-MR. There has been nothing said by the manufacturers that the missile can fit Sky Sabre and given the much larger size of the missile, plenty of reason to believe it will not.

        • The Future Common Missile (CAMM MR) program specifically states it’s being developed for UK land and naval forces.

          Sky Sabre is a system including a radar, control unit and launcher.

          If UK land forces are to deploy CAMM MR it will have to be from Sky Sabre or a totally new purchase which seems unlikely although the launcher may need to be larger.

          I believe it’s a fair assumption that CAMM MR will be launched from sky Sabre although granted it’s not been specifically confirmed.

          • If it’s longer then not that simple. given that they need to be truck mounted, there is an effective maximum length.

            • I gather that CAMM-MR is similar in length to CAMM-ER but a much wider (fatter) booster. Somewhat Aster like, but not sure it’s a two stage setup.

    • You clearly know nothing about GBAD. Please don’t even think a CAMM Land Ceptor is anything like an MLRS. Land Ceptor is a premiere air defence system.
      For context the recently destroyed , in Ukraine, Russian S500 air defence system cost over £120 million and represents a huge loss to Mad Vlad, Russia is estimated to only have 11 S500 systems now and the production capacity for around 1 every 1.5-2 years. So a superior Land Ceptor system for <£20 million seems like a decent investment. The UK armed forces however need at least another 30 launchers to give a rudimentary ability to defend key sites of critical national importance.

      • The article states that the contract is just for the launchers, not the entire land ceptor system. However, the UK government press release describes it as being the whole system. Some clarity is needed, but my point still stands that the launchers themselves are just missile trucks.

      • S500 and Sky Sabre cannot seriously be compared. Completely different class of weapon for completely different targets.

        A Sky Sabre type system would be needed to protect the S500.

  3. 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.

    • These additional 6 launchers do provide some rudimentary capability but I’ve estimated the UK armed forces need around 60 Land Ceptor launchers to provide defence for all key bases and critically important national sites. So 48 more= around £600-700 million total spend. Not a huge sum of money when the UK is currently paying £20 million a week housing economic migrants. I mean asylum seekers (must get the terminology politically correct) in 4-5 star hotels.

      • Anyone know why the UK is bucking military norms by having just 1 launcher per battery/system? Most NATO armies have 3 launchers in a battery with a detection and control system.
        Originally I’d thought after reading this purchase of 6 Land Ceptors (as opposed to 6 full Sky Sabre systems) that we were moving to 2 launchers per system/battery, but it seems we’re doubling the numbers of Sky Sabre systems, still with a single launcher apiece.
        There are NO 5-star hotels being used for migrants, I’d be very surprised if 4-star hotels are being used (please share examples), likely they’re 2-3 star.

    • 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.

      • 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.

          • Hi M8, The realist in me just can’t get over this announcement, if you set aside small arms this is the 2nd actual purchase of New(ish) Equipment for the British Army since Feb 22 and a 200% uplift.
            This and the 14 2nd hand Archer SPGs will mean that when Parliament returns we will have the pleasure of yet another “world leading capability” announcement by a Politician.

            Realist or Cynic ? You get to choose.😉

            Whatever next, could they possibly buy some Skyranger 30 systems for the Boxers ?

          • 6 launchers to be purchased means 12 launchers in total for the whole of 16 RA to share between the bty’s not 16 or 24 as has been mentioned, Which should be the case but unfortunately not.
            Yes very big mirrors and smoke, as to the systems that compliment the launchers, I’ll be keen to see if they will be in the new purchase if not its a ridiculous amount per launcher. Suppose I’ll find out after summer leave on camp what the actual truth is

              • I am the poster you’re referring to and I stand by what I said- we only have 6 LAUNCHERS (Land Ceptor) in service. I know this is hard to accept and can be scary, but it’s true. Our air defence is almost non existent. The stuff about 3 or 6 launchers per ‘system’ or whatever is nonsense unfortunately.
                Here’s the FOI request: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sky_sabre#incoming-2963061
                But I don’t think they want to admit we only have 6 launchers. (of which one or two are undergoing maintenance at any time)……Many thanks

                • So those FOIA exchanges don’t confirm just 6 launchers at all, from what I’m reading.
                  The Army just don’t confirm either way, which itself is stonewalling as you suggest.

          • We bought 6 Giraffe systems, and I assume (but cannot confirm) 6 MIC4AD control systems. Each Giraffe can control up to 3 launchers. Im guessing therefore 4 complete deployable fire systems (1 battery each) with 2 spare for LEAPP whatever that is. Sounds like an early warning system only.

      • 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.

  6. 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.

      • 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.

          • The ADF is using AMRAAM as the base missile in its newly fielded NASAMs GBAD either in canister launchers delivered via Rheinmettal trucks flat rack system (6 missiles each) or the more mobile variant mounted on Hawkei vehicles (4 missiles).

            The canister system is also capable of launching shorter ranged IR guided AIM9X (which can be mixed with AMRAAM in same launcher). The longer design of the ADF canisters will also allow a ground launched variant of the even longer ranged ESSM from NASAMS to be integrated in the future.

            All of these missiles are already in service in the ADF and this allows for a more flexible management of missile inventory (ie if AMRAAMs are in short supply other missiles can be substituted).

            • That makes me wonder if the cropped fin version of Meteor(F-35) could be launched from NASAMS? It would need a rocket booster to get it up to speed, but would increase the range of NASAMS.

    • 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?

        • Hi M8, I think you will find this is strictly for Defence of the Army when deployed. The whole question of UK GBAD is yet to be settled, do we go with the German led programme or France, either way it will cost a lot more than £1 billion.
          When you think about it, if we deployed Sky Sabre in U.K what real use would it be ? We are too far away from Russia to be facing short range tactical AirPower, they have no carrier anymore so it comes down to either long range Air Launched missiles / cruise missiles or MR/IRBM.
          The former has to be from what’s left of their Bear / Blackjack force (thank you Ukraine), which either come all the way through Europe or over the North Cape, either way CAP should be able to deal with them. TBH I suspect that in a direct war Russia will reserve its limited Bomber force for Nuclear 2nd strike, not throw it away on conventional.
          As for the latter Sky Sabre is pretty useless and besides which I suspect any type of Ballistic missile heading our way will be assumed to be nuclear and light up BMEW like a Xmas tree.
          I do think there will be further announcements in the upcoming DIP and we may well see us buying into the NATO IAMD, going it alone makes very little sense.
          As a matter of interest is 12 systems enough for the 2 divisions we are supposed to be able to deploy in NATO .

          • Agree, that is what those 2 Regiments are for.
            So HMG spinning a yarn again.

            No, I don’t think so.
            On the SHORAD side, so 12 RA, an additional Fire Battery has been formed.
            Batteries, last time zilch checked, are aligned to parts of the Field Army, so 12, 20, 7, 16 Brigades.
            We are short of SHORAD as we are other CS CSS to enable our Brigades properly.
            On the MRAD, 16 RA, Sky Sabre side, I’d have thought a Regiment each Division would be appropriate, if those 2 Divisions were fully formed with 3 deployable Brigades each.
            But they’re not, as we’ve covered many times.
            Sky Sabre I see as a Divisional asset, not at Brigade level.
            And 1 Division cannot deploy that way, or is even meant to the way it is currently set up.

      • I am completely aware these are meant for mobile defence of our in field battle units, but we also need UK land based systems now and it makes perfect sense, instead of them sitting in a warehouse, to have them securing UK sensitive targets it will will keep the crews trained on the systems.

        I do not think we are going to get a warning use before having missiles fired at us?

        All wars start with trying to get control of the air.

        • Apologies Iain, there’s a lot of it going around- a presumption on my part.
          I agree that it’s never a bad thing to have GBAD of the country- if we can afford it.
          The challenge with sitting anything outside on the north coast of Scotland for any length of time is the degradation it experiences from the poor weather, and that’s what I’d be concerned about for these systems.
          We have a number of radar stations in the north, alongside allied sensor stations in Norway and the other Nordic countries, and a very capable QRA. We’re also in the fortunate position that Russian aircraft have to come a long way to get to us, over a lot of territory that is friendly to us. While there’s always the chance of a surprise strike with little to no warning, it is (in my view) less likely than a similar strike on our forward deployed troops- so I would always prioritise money to that first.

          • Thanks you.

            Just read an interesting sinpet about the mobile launch launch module.

            “It is fitted with its own power supply allowing it to be dismounted from the parent vehicle and operated remotely if necessary, as well as mounting onboard test-equipment for streamlined maintenance.”

            So you just need the fixed site ilauncher modules, in concrete emplacements to defend military and key infrastructure sites, integrating them into wider existing or a local dedicated radar system via link 16.

            This sounds like a part of any future integrated UK wide missile / drone defence system, especially if fitted with the ER camm versions with 25+ mile range.

            But I imagine, the UK will spend at least another decade talking about an exquisite enormously complex and expensive do everything system, leaving us badly defended at any level in the meantime. Where as building a defence network quickly limiting the options on what attack methods any enemy must use make sense to me. Russia does not have a large supply of ballistic missiles, which are expensive and difficult to make.

    • Plus three naval construction yards. Makes at least 28 UK sites plus about 6 for forward deployed forces plus spares gives a requirement of around 40 to 50 units in total depending on how many other things can be covered by a unit protecting something else. For example shell filling plant for ammunition. Factories building missiles and air craft. Plus spare radars which are vulnerable to damage.

      And each unit needs defence against small drones or they could soon be expensive scrap

    • Real talk here. I am by no means an expert here so it’s fascinating to read all of the comments here but even I can see we need more air defence. We are very blessed to live on an island which makes anyone putting boots on the ground difficult but we are by no means invulnerable to air attacks. The government has modelled what would have happened had Russia attacked us like they did Ukraine and well the results aren’t pretty. They don’t talk about that because it’s somewhat of an embarrassing thing to admit. We need to be able to shoot those missiles out of the sky no matter what direction they might come from, no matter how fast they might travel.

      This news today is hopefully a promising development of what’s to come.

  7. 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.

        • Hi DM, at Coningsby at least three of the four squadrons are on the far side of the airfield under HAS, but 29 Sqn (the biggest of all) is under Akrotiri style roofs and in hangars next to the BBMF.

          • Hi mate.
            Yep, I know it well. Two HAS sites for 3 Sqns.
            29 being the OCU has operated from the flight line next to BBMF for years. So too I assume does 41 Sqn.
            We have plenty of HAS sites, I have listed them often enough. But those places no longer have fast air.
            Most remain on MoD estate, too.
            I’d like to see the other sites utilised more, or a dispersal plan in place. NATO paid for the things I think!

            • Thanks for the background, was just checking that the info was up to date as the above is what I was told during a site visit on Tuesday.
              It turns out that Typhoons in formation on the landing circuit are very loud, but not quite as loud as afterburning F15s doing a low pass!

        • Sorry but I would disagree, There are a thousands of key points in the UK far far more important than military logistics hubs and we can’t cover them all nor does any other country. It’s very difficult to close down a military logistics sight with cruise or conventional missiles but very easy to knock out a power transformer.

          But then what are we covering them from?

          If the Russians are firing at us they needs bombers and submarines to do it and wasting billions on UK based SAM’s is not the way to do it.

          ASW and QRA forces are the way to defend the UK from a distance.

          More frigates, Fast jets and E7’s I would say.

          • The other point I do always want to point out is that Russia won’t be targeting the UK. It’ll be targeting NATO. At the very least E-NATO. Why target Portsmouth, when you can target Hamburg and knock out both UK ships coming into the continent as well as American and Canadian ones. Why target UK infrastructure when you have bridges and rail hubs to disrupt.

            The UK is a distant target, cruise missiles and drones have to overfly a lot of NATO territory where they can be intercepted. Why knock out the UK’s power grid when you can be much more sure you’ll knock Germany’s power grid out?

  8. 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?

      • ‘System’ seems to me MOD civvie speak. It is basically obfuscatory, they have gor everyone from us to Janes puzzling over how many SAM launchers we have actually ordered.

        This new 6 takes us up to 12, so basically half a regiment. When you deduct those in the Falklands and those in training, we likely have two.batteries of 4 launchers each. Which is extremely thin to provide cover for the warfighting division, let alone both divisions.

        ‘System’ just means they have remembered to buy the enablers as well, the Giraffe radars and the command and ammunition supply trucks. I don’t see any of our allies talking about systems, they seem to announce that they are buying this number of Sky Rangers or that number of Patriots, it is taken as read that the buy will include the enabling radars and support vehicles.

        The MOD obfuscation PROs need to give it a break really, no one is taken in by substituting ‘systems’ for actual Sky Sabre launchers.

    • 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.

      • Don’t match equipment fleet to the amount of batteries. If you have a battery on high readiness, or an element in the Falklands your form cycle will mean that you don’t have all the sub units equipped and ready to go. You might have enough kit for 2, or more likely 2 and a bit that you could push out the door at any one time.

        All GBAD training equipment comes from the operational units so that’s another draw meaning that 6 launchers could double the available fleet, once training and the Falklands are taken away.

        Either way, we are still a minor nation when it comes to GBAD capability.

        Hopefully the SHORAD replacement will be the next announcement.

        • Thanks for that. So, 14RA at Larkhill does not have its own kit? Poor, I always assumed they did, as I believe they have a gun allocation.
          We are indeed, very minor.

          • Why is it poor?

            Are you suggesting it’s a good idea having kit sat doing nothing at Larkhill when GBAD training isn’t done there?

            • No, as wherever they train, I’d have hoped they’d have the kit to do it.
              14 is the RA Training Regiment, is it not?
              With one of its Batteries also having GBAD in its remit?
              And that means it can have Dets to carry out that training elsewhere in the UK, regardless if the parent Regiment is at Larkhill or Timbukto.
              That is all I meant when I mentioned Larkhill/RSA,14.
              I understand they used to have live firings at Manorbier, for example.
              For example, the RAC Armour Centre Regiment is at Bovington, doesn’t mean all training is carried out there when you have parts at Lulworth and Castlemartin.
              I wasn’t being that pedantic to be honest.

  9. 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.

  10. 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)

  12. 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!

  14. 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.

  16. 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

    • Everything was home from Poland at the end of last year. Think the Norwegians took it on.

      Earlier this year the launcher number was increased to 9, this this additional 6 will put it at 15.

      Shared across training, Falklands and the rest of the Regiment by the looks of it.

  17. So we now have adequate numbers of systems and launchers for a very minimal cover for 3rd division, now we just need the same total for 1st division and a plan for defending core UK infrastructure nodes so another 30 odd of these and some THAAD systems for those capabilities we cannot loss to IRBM attack ohh yes and some way to defend against large numbers of cheap as chips long range drones in all core infrastructure nodes.

    • Back in the Cold War days we had almost 200 Rapier launchers between the Army and the RAF Regt, as well as Bloodhound launchers. Sky Sabre obviously greatly superior to Rapier, but even 12 deployable launchers barely adequate to cover 3rd Div on deployment, plus any forward deployed air assets. Home defence won’t get a look in. CDS in his recent speech said he didn’t believe in homeland defence anyway, and would favour tying down Russian forces by attacking in E Europe. Seems to be hoping the Russians play the game according to UK strategy.

  18. The UK still has no long range missile defence! Just about the only major power not to. It’s disgraceful that the country remains wholly unprotected from air threats (QRA is a joke, it’s not 1940 anymore).

    These sky saber systems are inherently short range, limited by the radar to less than 150km or so, yet Russia has air launched ground attack missiles of +1000km range. They have hypersonic missiles and they have ballistic missiles. The UK is ill equipped to deal with any of this. we have no ballistic interception capability, no hypersonic defence over any appreciable range. Basically the MoD has not felt home defence was necessary, our only real defence is the euphemistic ‘nuclear umbrella’ which might not even be capable of working and is an after the fact deterence, ie. It does not kill an attack it just attacks back. Also a ballistic city killing nuclear response is pretty asymmetric to a convention tactical attack, so would not be used in practise as it would escalate the situation.

    This situation of no missile based air defence continues due to complacency and I assume stupidity. Much better it seems to waste money on super carriers with no cats, no aircraft and no escorts.

    • Except they aren’t super-carriers, they are heavily value-engineered STOVL carriers, with the same crew size (the biggest factor in running costs) as a CVS. And there are some escorts and will soon be more – the T45s are in the middle of a programme of fixes and upgrades, new frigates are being built and will be commissioning over the next few years.

      Whilst it is a disgrace that fixing the T45s and ordering new frigates took so long, leading inevitably to the current dip in numbers, at least we have European allies who can, in the meantime supplement our current meagre escort fleet. Better that than sacrificing something that nobody else in NW Europe can provide for more of what our friends have in abundance.

  19. “…The system integrates a Saab Giraffe Agile Multi Beam (GAMB) 3D radar with a 120 km range and a Rafael SAMOC command-and-control centre” Regards, a good week…

  21. We need to reconstitute the Home Guard. I’m not joking. I provides a useful bridge and introduction to the Regular Army. The Home base being more vulnerable and a surer target for the opposition, you need something that can be economic yet brings the general populus into the equation.
    In WW2 our pony of the time got called up for duty in the Pony Patrol in the Forest. (Part of the Home Guard.) Today it would be a trials bike. On Days off the pony was hitched to the pony cart as family transport. Not Joking.

  22. Anyone know why the UK is bucking military norms by having just 1 launcher per battery/system? Most NATO armies have 3 launchers in a battery with a detection and control system.
    Originally I’d thought after reading this purchase of 6 Land Ceptors (as opposed to 6 full Sky Sabre systems) that we were moving to 2 launchers per system/battery, but it seems we’re doubling the numbers of Sky Sabre systems, still with a single launcher apiece.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

By submitting this comment, you agree to the storage and handling of your data by this website in accordance with our Privacy Policy.