The Ministry of Defence has published what’s called a “Prior Information Notice” detailing their intent to eventually purchase a new, fully integrated air defence system.
“This PIN is the first within a series informing the Industry of the strategic direction of the Land Ground Based Air Defence (Land GBAD) Programme. The intent of this PIN is to provide notification of a planned Market Interest Day to be held in October 2022 (venue in Bristol); which will seek the views from Industry Partners to as (as to) how the identified threats are to be addressed and capabilities integrated across the Programme.
The Authority would welcome innovative ideas, insights and perspectives from Industry Partners on how the Land GBAD capability requirement can be addressed including the potential for industry and MOD collaboration.”
The requirements are also set out.
The notice states that the land GBAD Programme has been established in response to the Army’s requirement for a fully integrated Air Defence system of systems.
“This is a Category A Government Major Project Portfolio (GMPP) programme. This will be an enduring capability that will be delivered through incremental capability uplifts over the next 10 years.”
The identified ‘Single Statement of User Need’ for Land GBAD is stated as:
“Land GBAD must provide sufficient, effective capability to warn, inform, deter and defeat all air threats (including aircraft, missiles, munitions, and UAS), in order to prevent adversary interference from the air inhibiting Joint Force freedom of manoeuvre. Land GBAD will provide lethal and non-lethal defeat mechanisms and minimise the risk it presents to friendly and neutral air users. It will be deployable on multi-domain operations, integrated, scalable up to divisional level, and in joint and multi-national operations to Protect, Engage, Constrain and Fight.”
Identified capabilities to be delivered and enhanced by the Land GBAD programme include:
• Short-Range Air Defence (SHORAD);
• Medium-Range Air Defence (M-RAD);
• Counter Small Aerial Targets (C-SAT) for SHORAD and MRAD; and
• All Arms Counter Small Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (All Arms C-sUAS).
These capabilities will be incrementally delivered as a multifaceted and multi-layered programme over a 10-year period.
“Aerial threats to be targeted range from Class 1 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) including swarms, artillery, munitions, Attack Helicopters and Fixed Wing Aircraft, with potential for larger munitions and the introduction of future novel weapons.”
Well I never. Just checked the date, nope not April 1st. Good news.
Yes, this was outlined in the latest equipment plan reports. It is coming.
Just wait til 1,000 plus Boxer with all the trimmings are ordered there will be meltdown here.
Though I understand it does not include a Starstreak replacement, just improvement and replacement of the Stormer vehicles. I may be wrong on that though.
I am anything but an expert on this but wasn’t their some MoD ‘double speak’ mention a few months back going on about Martlet (effectively as the LVM) and then the HVM which relates to Starstreak (though media outlets understandably seems to be confused about these terms too). Didn’t say much I remember just one sentence really but I did pose the question back then did that mean the original upgrade for Starstreak/HVM is now being introduced and that new versions of the missile or even a replacement is being designed and/or being produced. However haven’t heard anything else stated… Read more »
You mean LMM of course, not LVM.
I don’t recall any announcement other than LMM entering service as Martlet as ASM.
Davey must be the man to answer regards Starstreak ( HVM ) developments?
Starstreak 2 has already been developed and tested.The production order was switched to Martlet (LMM) however. It’s likely that Starstreak 2 will be ordered to replace those sent to Ukraine and additional Martlet as well. The interesting bit will be if any of the additional warhead/seeker/engine upgrades will be funded for Martlet. The smart move is CAMM, CAMM-ER, Starstreak 2 and Martlet with the Thales Rapidfire system utilising some of the 40mm CT guns that we have lying around. An upgrade to ADAD and additional C-UAS systems/radar’s from Blighter would be really useful as well. Add in the additional radar’s… Read more »
ADAD, any indication that’s included in the upgrades or just a suggestion? It’s used in conjunction with Starstreak I understand?
It is LMM but, rightly or wrongly, it has been referred to as LVM in some media. What the original source for LVM is I couldn’t say.
Hi Danielle,
“Just wait til 1,000 plus Boxer with all the trimmings are ordered there will be meltdown here.”
Is this true? Forgive me, first I’ve heard of it. Do we know how they will be fitted out if the order is expanded to this number? Any with cannons that could feasibly take the strain off the Ajax programme?
We have ordered 623 so far. The word/rumour in defence circles is that the orders will exceed 1,000 vehicles. And back when the army ordered the original 523 there were options to increase that to around 1500. It has been increased by 100 so far. Javelin added to RWS is likely, as the equipment for that modification is recently on order I believe. No idea for certain regards other fit outs beyond rumours that the army is looking at a range of options. We would love Cannon and Brimstone versions wouldn’t we. I believe this is coming from the 6… Read more »
Thank you!
Have wanted to raise the following for some time, but am very concious that land forces are not my part of ship, as you know Daniele. You’ll also be aware that hasn’t stopped before, though. Leaving aside stealth, my thoughts go on these lines: a) Air Forces have never majored on thick armour for obvious reasons. b) Navies followed an arms race matching firepower to armour and back, but since WW2 gave that up in favour of missile / point defence options. c) Armies still put great resource into heavy AFV, though. Leaving out a), which will never change, I… Read more »
I think that is the direction the army are heading, or want to if they can get past their own spin and actually stick to a plan. They have said it themselves. Smaller, lighter, agile, trading mass for agility and firepower, linked to stealth, EW, ISTAR, and deep fires. I still believe in the tank myself. The Russians have just used theirs appallingly. Tank Destroyers. My fav vehicles from WW2! All German. They had a need for them. I thought navies still had armour around vital areas on vessels, not the armour you mean of course. If we still had… Read more »
Thanks for that. I suppose the baseline question to date has always been, Why does the revert to heavy armour occur? Don’t think I’ve come across that one as a specific. One never stops pondering and thought processes constantly refine, but thats what makes discussion perennially fascinating. Yes, referring to heavy and heavier armour solutions rather than very little, as you say. One area not faced by air and sea craft to such a significant degree is landscapes’ ability to provide cover to the last seconds e.g. forest and urbane. But they have never been traditional tank country anyway, quite… Read more »
Totally agree with you Daniele.
We need TDs to augment the future small MBT fleet.
I was at RARDE Chertsey in 89/90 and our unmanned vehicles work was at least 15 years ahead of civvy R&D; it was said that our colleagues at RARDE Fort Halstead were working on EM rail guns for ships and tanks at the same time.
Wonder where that tech went? Shared with DARPA?
Russian tanks in Ukraine are getting clobbered but the last time we lost a British tank to enemy fire was in the Battle of Imjin in the Korean War. Much depends on the quality of the tank, the crew, the tactical handling and the engineering and logistic support as to whether a nation will be successful with their tanks or not.
I agree that we should not make our tanks any heavier and protect them additionally with clever armour and APS.
I fully agree we should resurrect the TD concept – CVR(T) Striker has still not been replaced.
I will meltdown if those replacing WR don’t all have stabilised 40mm cannons!
Interesting point to note is it does mention missile defence however it does not mention ballistic missile defence. If fighting in Ukraine has showed us anything it’s that CAMM is increasingly useless over land. Not that it’s not a great missile however Russia seems to not want to use its air force over a contested environment and instead will use ballistic missiles. Sending a British army to fight a pier competitor with no ballistic missile defence is verging on criminal now. The UK desperately needs some form of wide area missile defence system weather that’s SMAP/T aster or THAAD. The… Read more »
You can’t bank on other adversaries fighting like the Russians do. Drones will also fire swarming weapons, anti radiation missiles etc , so lots of Camm would deal with that. Subsonic cruise missiles are still being heavily used by Russia, its not just iskander or adapted S300. A peer using better MLRS similar to Himars/M240 also needs a counter. And Camm and Caam ER would fill that niche with some development. Yes ABM needs to be added as an upper tier, but the medium range option is probably the sweet spot that has been lacking. Laser weapon for SHORAD, Camm… Read more »
Not many potential adversaries other than Russia. China very far away and I can’t see us getting involved in a land war against anyone else other than in some form of coalition. Russia is our existential threat and our forces should be organised primarily to counter them. I’m sure CAMM could already intercept an MLRS type rocket however it’s likely to be too expensive to do so given the expense and limited numbers of a missile like CAMM. Something more along the lines of C-RAM is probably more cost effective however I believe we have dismantled out C-RAM systems. The… Read more »
You forgot about the EU.
I agree. Britain needs multi-layered air defense for national defense (including Akrotiti, Gibraltar, and possibly the Falklands) as well as deployable assets for conflicts. Take a look at the new Stryker SHORAD variant with a 50KW laser that the US is soon to field. On paper they look very effective. I wonder how much those 50KW lasers will cost at a full production rate. For ballistic missile defense, I agree, either pony up the money for THAAD or develop a land-based Aster. It is a glaring hole: if there is a ballistic missile strike on an RAF base you can’t… Read more »
Hmmm… perhaps someone should suggest to the Brits that aomeone w/in RAF or MoD hierarchy begin a quiet lobbying campaign to convince USAF to install US owned THAAD systems at one or more MOBs. Would probably reside below the cut line for unfunded priorities for a year it two before the light dawn’s on an intelligent Congressional staffer, but really, what is the downside of a parallel path of lobbying Uncle Sugar?
Really have to proofread these texts…someone…year or two…dawns…🙄. Autocorrect feature sometimes sabotages effort.
When you have the third largest defence budget on the planet you should not have to beg an Allie to provide basic defence for you. The UAE can afford THAAD, no reason the UK can’t get something similar. It’s primarily an issue of sovereign capability. The UK must retain the ability to act without US or any other countries input. Theatre level air defence and ABM is now moving from a bit of a gimmic or nice to have to a key part of the ability to operate in a modern war environment. The UK mainland does benefit from ABM… Read more »
Interesting, divergent perspective; any program I was associated w/ was always more than willing to leverage someone else’s funds, equipment, etc, and would probably consider it a management coup. From a strictly homeland defense perspective, If I was standing on the deck of the world”a largest aircraft carrier (aka the UK) w/ ballistic missiles inbound, I would probably not be overly concerned w/ the ownership of the ABM rounds, but rather grateful, if the threat was eliminated. Expeditionary battlefield coverage is admittedly an entirely separate issue. Again, interesting divergent perspectives; not passing judgment on validity of either…🤔
Utter rubbish. Sky Sabre is very effective.
At shooting down ballistic missiles?
Has CAAM been used in the Ukraine.?.
Could you expand on the “useless over land” bit please as that is rather worrying as it has only just entered service.
He said useless over land in the sense that Russia has not been fighting with weapons that CAMM is designed to deal with. China generally also likes to follow the ballistic missile doctrine. If the U.K. went to war with a nation that used ballistic missile, CAMM alone would not be the best option as it simply couldn’t deal with them. Of course, Russia also uses cruise missiles and jets. However, if CAMM doesn’t also have an ABM system covering it, it will be eliminated through the use of ballistic missiles. Hence, while I wouldn’t go as far as to… Read more »
What he said 😀
What evidence do you have that CAMM cannot intercept ballistic missiles?
Good question. CAMM is the successor to Sea Wolf which is on record as having shot down an artillery shell, a supersonic very small target. It was a very good system. I would expect a CAMM to be capable of intercepting a large falling object like a ballistic missile warhead at a longer range than either Sea Ram or Phalanx.
I’ve never seen anyone claim it can; it’s not designed for this. As Netking said below, even MBDA has not claimed it can do so. Otherwise, using its range and theoretical ceiling, you can also deduce it wouldn’t be able to reliably intercept ballistic missiles, even in the terminal phase.
It’s useless if the enemy does not use aircraft but only uses ballistic and cruise missiles as we seen in Ukraine. It is not effective against ballistic missiles and is too short ranged to cover large areas of a battlefield. It’s still highly effective at sea where it’s primarily used for self protection of a vessel against anti ship missiles especially when operating as parts of a wider fleet supplemented by area defence from the T45 with Aster 30 missiles. The missile is great and probably best in the world in class but the environment it was acquired for is… Read more »
As I asked above, what evidence do you have that CAMM cannot intercept ballistic missiles?
Not answering for him but I haven’t seen the claim that it can intercept ballistic missiles made anywhere, not even from the vendor.
IIRC one of the issues with Patriot PAC-1 was not that it couldn’t intercept the old Scud, its that its warhead was to weak to do much against the BM, PAC-1 warhead is around 200lb of explosive, CAMM total weight is 218lb’s so warhead is likely to be even weaker.
The PAC 1 version of Patriot was primary designed to counter manned aircraft. It had a limited capability against ballistic threats. The PAC 2 version was designed from the outset as a anti-tactical ballistic missile system with a secondary anti-aircraft role. With SCUD, you have to remember the missile is a one piece system. It doesn’t use stages. It is a bit like a V2 in that regard. So it has a lot of mass, starting at 4400kg for SCUD A up to 6500kg for SCUD D. However when the missile has past its apogee and burnt off all its… Read more »
So Sky Sabre+ (CAMM-ER to cover M-RAD and dragon fire on Boxers for C-SAT C-SAT)
Wonder if the existing CAMM maybe being replaced with CAMM-ER or a having mixed missile fleet?
Exisiting Sky Sabre can use both standard CAMM and CAMM-ER
I’ve always fan of the SAMP/T system although it’s probably too expensive. CAMM-ER would seem makes the most sense, it’s a shame the navy didn’t opt for it in addition to CAMM.
Why?
Well it would give you more of a layered defence and would allow you to tackle a wider range of threats at greater ranges and higher altitudes. I’m sure CAMM is fine by itself and perfect for what it was designed to do but surely having more ships with a wider area air defence is only a good thing?
A mixture that is sometimes seen is RAM + ESSM. The cold launch equivalent is CAMM + CAMM-ER. Canadian T26 is planning on CAMM + ESSM. T31 is based off an AAW heavy frigate that can go to 7,000+t. It should at least have one class of missile that can reach out to ESSM type ranges. If it gets mk41 or equivalent there are multiple hot launch options. Without it, CAMM-ER is the only longer range option.
The return of 36 heavy air defence regiment RA (thunderbirdsd are go) or RAF (bloodhound)????? Never should have been disbanded..
It seems to exclude high altitude air defence. Without that I don’t think you can protect against theatre ballistic missiles. I stand to be corrected on this if I’m wrong.
More than just 3 AEW aircraft would also be an important first step
Yes, seems to be amiss. Maybe land based Aster for higher altitudes could be considered?
Ths Army request so assume (dangerous) this is more mobile AAW to travel with formations rather than long range area/ BM defence which we need 1 x LOS, 1 x MRM, 1 x CON/WAD, 1 x BZZ, 1 xDPT/SW and 1 X Catterrick
Yes, mostly these systems used by the RA are for deployment by the Field Army to support 3 UK Division and 16AA.
You’d need to cover quite a few more than that group. What is SW?
Hi DM, South West something like THaaD has 100mile range so if you put it at those locations you cover most of major defence sites, you might couple more say IOM and Glasgow and i think it would cover good portion of country. Personally if it ever got back to that level i’d heading towards the biggest target as don’t think would want to be around after 🙁
Right, gotcha. I missed your BM mention my brain was thinking point/area defence.
would need Sky Sabre at every air base/HMNB and garrison for that as a min, would only provide limited civiy protection, If you put somethng like Patriot/iron Dome at same places would provide pretty good layered air defence but there is no way we will spend that much as there perceived threat is not high enough 🙁 by time it is will be too late
You can cover most of the UK major population centre as and military targets likely to be targeted with about 8 systems. That was not worth doing in the Cold War as the Soviets could send hundreds of missiles however in a modern context with just 1500 to use against the whole of NATO and two thirds of these being needed just to deal with just US nuclear weapons sights the UK might only get targeted by a few missiles and a dozen or so warheads. ABM systems become very worth while in those instances. The Russians have them guarding… Read more »
Hi Steve, you have to forgive my ignorance but can you elaborate on all those acronyms? I’m assuming that they’re specific base locations? Thanks.
Hi QD, Lossiemouth, Marham, Conningsby/Waddington, Brize Norton & Devonport/South West, other was Isle of Man but Valley probably better. old habits always use airfield codes
Thanks Steve!
My immediate thought was ‘shouldn’t we be concentrating on all the projects and developments currently half finished’ (weapon integration, FASM for eg). But then my sensible head told me that every aspect of defence is constantly developing and not doing the integrated air defence system project would simply become a capability gap in the future.And its bloody interesting to follow progress on stuff like this.
Aye , there is apparently much in development behind the scenes. DARPA (those nice folks who brought us the Internet which has made the world a much happier place😉) currently involved in project “Gambit” involving RDE (rotation detonation engine) technology which would completely revolutionise not just missile but engine technology as a whole. Well worth a ganders and how it relates to overcoming China and everyone’s favourite bad boys hypersonic programmes .
🏴🇬🇧
Someone in the MOD must be reading all our ukdj posts! Very good news…keep on going!!!
I understand 3 units, one from each service, read the comment sections of sites like this to see what is said, especially stuff of an operational nature, and especially from those serving.
That’s encouraging to hear. Good ideas can come from the grassroots.
Yes, but I’m not talking about light bulb ideas that MoD head office and officers have not considered.
I’m talking about OPSEC, OSA, and that sort of thing.
Agree. There’s always parallel technologies for similar requirements being developed by our allies as well as our potential adversaries plus real live conflicts exposing potential and actual gaps in our defences.
What’s classed as short/ medium range? Does it need to be mobile, and if so, how mobile? Would a ground based Aster/ Sea Viper be suitable or would this be too cumbersome?
The specifications seem very loose at this point.
I get the feeling they haven’t concluded what form beyond generalisations at least, this will eventually take, they are after all seeking ‘input from industry’. I think this is more about them realising there is an urgent need developing that simply cannot be ignored, rather than clarity on how to address it as yet.
Not so sure, I’d read these requirements have billion plus funding already allocated in the 10 year equipment plan so I’d have thought with budget allocated they have a good idea where this is going.
Ground-based Aster/Sea Viper is SAMP/T, which is used by Italy and France and generally considered long-range. Of course, it depends what Aster it’s using; 15, 30 Block 0/1/1NT etc. However, it appears that the U.K. is moving away from Aster 15 on the Type 45s (the only platform where we use Asters) in order to do an only Aster 30 loadout for the 48 A50s and use the soon-to-be-fitted 24x CAMM to fill the SHORAD gap.
Aster 15 makes no sense when you have CAMM. Better to repurpose the warheads and turn them in to aster 30. I would very much like to see a land based aster for the UK and rapid development on the Block II NT with anti ballistic missile technology. It’s an amazing system that we already use and we can buy much off the shelf from the Italians or French.
Agree completely. Sky Sabre and SAMP/T in sufficient numbers (like the Polish 400 Sky Sabre launchers) would make for a formidable air defence system, as well as furthering the commonality between army and RN.
Yes especially if Aster Block II NT is incorporated in for ABM and we use the data targeting mods for E7 AEW. Then the UK is bomb proof for just a few billion. Seems like a bargain for a country spending $70 billion a year on defence.
Aster 15 can cope with erratically manoeuvring targets better than CAMM, due to its larger “wing” surface area and lateral reaction jets. However, it costs like 3 to 4 times the amount of CAMM. CAMM can achieve a comparable kill percentage as a single Aster 15, by launching a salvo of 2 or 3 missiles at a threat.
Every time I see the 24 CAMM mentioned, which is better than nothing, the covering of two potential mk41 slots still seems very wasteful to me and others here. Why they can’t try for additional CAMM and get the combined load with Asters up to or over 80? The NZ Anzac frigates have a compact 20 CAMM (2×6+2×4) silo so different pack sizes can be used. 4×8 will give 32 CAMM like the T23s. Not sure if CAMM or Aster can reloaded while at sea – does anyone know?
I agree. Getting the 16 Mk. 41s fitted would be much much smarter as it would allow for some ASROCs, Tomahawks or a CAMM only load out to be fitted depending on the mission. For example, 64 CAMM seems a bit excessive but 32 CAMM, 4 ASROC and 4 Tomahawk seems perfectly reasonable. I believe neither the Asters nor Sea Ceptors can be reloaded at sea. One would need a crane; the Americans have a few destroyer tenders that can reload the destroyers at sea but we don’t do it’s a no. Would be good to sea us have a… Read more »
It has always baffled me, why the RN decided to put CAMM next to the Aster farm. There are at least two other locations on the ship where they could go, such as the hangar roof or either side of the mid mast. This would then still allow the area set aside for the MK41 to be used for its intended purpose.
Someone at the MOD or treasury hates the idea of mk41 on T45. Makes no sense.
Totally with you on this , even side silos besides the Asters. 24 CAMM is basically a 1 X RAM load +1. Talking of RAM, I’d like to see 1 or 2 of these linked in with the Phalanx’s on the QE carriers for a bit more of defensive armament with range. Or even adapt the Sea/Star Streak to fit in them.
I would say almost certainly if the navy gets more mk41 than the type 26 it will be on the type 31 , this was even hinted at by a navy head at a meeting of the commons defence committee. Any work on the type 45’s will be engine and air defence related
Even a ground based Meteor… and if I can be totally whacky… what about a SAM/ABM/ AShM version of Aster, a bit like SAM 6, could be useful… and expensive… That’s my 5c worth for today.
AShM I’m not sure about because the warhead is fairly small. SM-6 (I’m assuming you meant that since SAM6 is a Russian point-defence system) is about three times the mass with a warhead of 64kg against Aster 30’s 15kg. However ABM is definitely under development, with Block 1NT already able to take our short range tactical ballistic missiles. I’m afraid that the Block 2 and anything further on might require a larger missile and therefore the A70 VLS system. Never understood why we didn’t fit that. In addition, GB meteor I believe has been talked about; not in simply sticking… Read more »
I believe A70 is only a matter of length beyond the A50 and the T45 cells have the depth to accommodate it they just need to be installed. The only weapon at the time planned for the A70 was the French cruise missile.
The SCALP EG that is British-French and is called Storm Shadow in service with the RAF?
Yes, sorry, I meant the SM-6.
Short range is generally classed as a within visual range (WVR) weapon system. Whilst medium range can be beyond visual range (BVR) and up to 100km. Though these have become blurred of late, when CAMM has demonstrated it can engage targets beyond the horizon. Whilst systems like NASM range is dependent on the type of AMRAAM it uses, so can be from 40 to 70km.
So, lasers and rail guns then.
What about long range air defence?
RAF
In what way?
QRA
How is QRA going to stop a missile though?
The idea is to intercept the launch platform of such Missiles, be it a heavy Bomber or Warship before they can be launched.
The weak point in the argument, is when faced against a coordinated multi-pronged strike using sub-launched cruise missiles and air launched. Generally, Russian aircraft such as Bear and Backfire fly above 30,000ft, so ground based radar in Norway (Sweden and Finland now) will be able to track there initial progress until they fly west of Norway. But once they are past Iceland they will be lost, unless ships in the area or an aircraft spots them. They could and would most likely favour a cruise missile strike that comes in from the West of the Country, especially over Ireland, as… Read more »
That was really helpful, Davey. Thanks!
Great post. One issue is the SM-6 has been successfully guided by data fed to it by an F-35 and an E-2D is past testing.
Thanks also DB, That was another good read!
Its been on the wish list for a long time but the last defence review and equipment plans put in-service date back to 2029 to save money.
Not going to happen. I know you love OTS but that’s just not how it works. If a war starts we need to have the capability to produce more; many more. That’s realistic with something like a CAMM-ER Sky Sabre or SAMP/T but not with anything Israeli or American.
And the gullible still swallow this?
The RN is spending £300m upgrading the Sea Viper system on the AW T45 Destroyers to add Sea Ceptor missiles, upgrade the Aster missiles and the Radar systems / software. This is designed to include a defence against AS Ballistic missiles. So why add another system, extra logistics, cost etc and just adapt it for Land use ? Yes the Army needs mobile defence but the U.K. has never replaced the Bloodhound’s or provide SAM for the U.K. Surely the way to fast track this is by using the Portsdown T45 radars and the VLS from a T45 to trial… Read more »
Agreed, it is already there lets use it if feasible.
Stone frigates. Britain’s answer to the Maginot line! What about air launching from 737’s? Bulk purchase air defence.
How many B737s would you need to keep in the air 24/7/365? How much (expensive) fuel would they burn? How many crews would be needed? GBAD is probably a lot cheaper & easier.
Fixed SAM sites have the massive disadvantage in that they are……….. fixed. Much more value in having mobile systems.
I meant a variant of say, the P8, that could cover the UK and beyond as a mobile ABM-Hypersonics base.
What a brilliant idea, but I do wonder what the cost would be and just what we do if the weather has grounded the planes.
Maybe that is why noone else has tried it.
I didn’t say anything about using fixed missile sites but for UKADGE you use a land based radar system to give coverage but mobile missile launchers. Or a combination of the 2. I am suggesting we trial using what we already have and are paying to upgrade, see how it works and decide how to develop it.. Let us just think about Portsdown for a second and how it could be used as an operational test site. Location on a hill and the existing T45 raders are between 130 and 145m up, so enough range to cover the entire south… Read more »
The Portsdown Radar site you mentioned is a one off and it’s fixed, you don’t need Type 45 type VLS, just integrate something like the SAMP-T System into the UK Radar coverage if the Aster is your Missile of choice.
Yes it is a fixed location, but it is a very useful location for either a trial or operational system. And it is existing and available to trial a concept, so why not try it. There is a huge difference in size / weight / power requirements for heavy long range warning radars than the more mobile ones such as Giraffe. But you get more range, better target acquisition data and the most importantly time to react. Let us just remember that the BMEWS is fixed as are such sites as GCHQ, Menwith hill etc. All I am saying is… Read more »
UK version of AEGIS Ashore perhaps.
AEGIS Ashore would be the best solution – but completely unaffordable in the present climate, if that amount of funding was available I could think of better things to spend it on.
I’m waiting to see if there’s any Aster 40 or 50s in the pipeline! Sorry , just stirring. 😆
Land based SM3 and Aegis works great for Romania no reason the same can’t be done for Sea Viper. However fixed systems are more vulnerable to cruise missile attacks. This Russian kilo subs in the Black Sea would be pilling in kalibres in to Romania in the event of a war to knock our NATO ABM capability.
Is this safe in Army hands? Whatever happened to all those 3.7″ and 40mm Bofors AA guns anyway?
Someone needs to keep a close eye on this or we’ll end up with duplication of effort aka Bloodhound and Thunderbird(s) are go.
It should be relatively easy. Royal Artillery handle the short to medium range mobile systems. Whilst the RAF handle the medium to long range fixed systems.
One again this is focused on protecting the army. We need a national land based air defence system like France, Germany, Italy and many other Western/NATO countries.
We can start by buying more Sky Sabre and permanently stationing it in key locations in the UK. Then we need to buy an ASTER 30 1NT/block2 based system. The ASTER 30 block 2 would provide ABM cover.
None of the countries you named have a national air defence system. Germany has a small number of Patriots and France and Italy an equally small number of SAMP/T. What we need is a system that resembles a land-based Type 45 destroyer. So our version of SAMP/T, with the SAMPSON radar.
They have a land based system that is dedicated to protecting their homeland not their army as in the UK – that is a national defence system. It might not cover all areas of the country but it is better then having NO land bases SAM system dedicated to defending the UK.
A land based National system bases on ASTER and Sky Sabre would be good.
Is this part of Skykeeper? Will it be able to intercept Iskander/Scud type ballistic missiles? If we need a better radar than SAABs Giraffe, how about Raytheons LTAMDS?
The system would have to be network enabled so that many sensor types could build a fussed air picture. I am sure NADC already has such a picture. Sky Sabre wold just slot in as would ASTER 30. The ASTER 30 block 1 as used by the French in their land system can intercept scud class missiles. This is the missile that the RN will upgrade the type 45 with. The ASTER 30 1NT is the missile that is capable against longer range faster missiles and it is also used against aircraft etc. The ASTER 30 1NT has a new… Read more »
Lockheed Martin UK built the Skykeeper BMC4I for British forces. Skykeeper is touted as “the central nervous system” of the proposed GBAD.
I thought they tried this in the mid 2000’s and it was massively scaled back on cost grounds to LEAP which went to LM and even that morphed into a purchase of just SAAB Giraffe radar systems which was really what the Army wanted all along but they were forced to run an expensive competition.
Surely this has to include some kind of laser weaponry as well at least for dealing with drones. The Ukrainians have been using Martlets to shoot down Russian drones but the cost of a single Martlet is probably far higher than the drones they shoot down. Each laser shot would cost a few pence in power consumption.
Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) are definitely more cost effective but suffer from a lack of power against challenging targets like planes an missiles. The problem is that the laser needs time on target to transfer enough energy to destroy the target. The current lasers cannot transfer the required levels of energy yet. How ever the field is still developing and DEWs will I am sure become effective against larger targets. Then we are into the normal round of development vs counter development….mirrored missiles… etc
With regard to missiles a kill might not be necessary. It might be possible to attack just the targeting system on the missile, or a control surface, disabling it. Also more than one laser on any given threat will better the odds. Directed Energy Weapons will not be limited to lasers. All directable energy is up for study as a solution.
Why not go and buy an aegis ashore system from the Americans as we get most of our equipment from them anyway might aswell continue the trend
Has someone from the MOD been reading https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk & realised this is a deficit in defence. Often mentioned by my learned colleagues on here?
Dear MOD, please stick around, you will find there’s a lot of people on here with actual experience in the field who can point you in the right direction!
Is it me, or is the MoD’s use of language becoming ever more arcane?
“… in order to prevent adversary interference from the air inhibiting Joint Force freedom of manoeuvre.”
Seriously…there’s no need for this kind of word salad. It’s like a teenager trying to sound educated by using a thesaurus and picking whatever word has the most syllables.
Is this part of team complex weapons. Not sure I understood is this is new weapons/missiles or new systems and radars. Or both 🙂.
Good to see the C-sUAS is all arms. It will need to be widely distributed to be effective.