Defence Secretary Ben Wallace said:
“These next generation light anti-tank weapons have played a decisive role in supporting Ukraine’s army to drive back Russia’s illegal invading forces. Working with our first-class industry partners, we are continuing to fulfil our commitment to NATO by ensuring our Armed Forces will receive a steady supply of these weapons over the coming years, whilst supporting UK jobs across the length and breadth of the country.”
Saab’s President and CEO Micael Johansson said:
“Demand is increasing for anti-tank systems such as NLAW. We look forward to further strengthening our close relationship with the UK and are proud to continue delivering our proven and trusted anti-tank capability.”
NLAW is a shoulder-launched missile system that attacks a tank from above. It combines the simplicity of light anti-armour weapons with the advantages of heavy, crew-operated guided missile systems.
“It is as a result of this agility, reliability and accuracy that the NLAW has been an important capability in Ukraine’s fight back against Russia’s illegal invasion, making up part of the 10,000 anti-tank weapons the UK has supplied to the Ukrainian armed forces”.
You can read more here.
Good to see that we are replenishing our depleted stock of NLAW.
The part that is concerning is the last bit that states this makes up part of the supplies we have sent to Ukraine. No doubt more will be sent, so it looks like we are accepting a reduced stockpile.
Nothing to worry about right now. I don’t mind if we have a reduced stockpile of these for now. Ukraine’s using them so we don’t have to; I’m happy for them to have as many as they need.
I’d rather make sure that we have plenty of Meteors, ASRAAM, Spear (all variants inc Spear 3 when it enters service), NSM (when they enter service), Storm Shadow, and artillery rounds and missiles for our M270 GLMRS’s.
Totally agree, in the end Ukraine is doing our job for us, if we need them in the short term something very serious will have happened that the Russians simply are not prepared for in that period, probably longer if they have an ounce of sense. My main concern is if we are still stuck in the Swiss trap that these new ones won’t be transferable to Ukraine if things really drag on.
Whilst I agree the threat has reduced from Russia, but so has all our armoured capability. We are slashing our chally number and getting rid of warrior. Replaced with lightly armed boxer. NLAW is effectively our ace for combating that problem. Cutting our own stockpiles means if the worst happens we don’t have any way to hit back.
History tells us we will blindly follow the US into their next proxy war, who that will be against who knows. There are plenty of nations with big tank forces.
Military stock take years to build up and so cutting them now means less capability should it be needed.
Military stock does take years to build up, but I’m willing to bet money that NLAWs can be built significantly faster than the likes of Meteor, Storm Shadow, NSM etc.
Likely the next war is against China and will be predominantly naval and in the air.
We won’t be going to war with China. The west economy is too reliant on it. We might go to wars in Africa or south America that are proxy wars or China. More likely though is the traditional duo of Iran/north Korea.
If we ever face a tank heavy force again and it comes down to NLAW, I think it’s safe to say the situation is FUBAR. Boxer carrying Brimstone and Apaches/Typhoons/F-35 with that and SPEAR 3 should be smashing any armour well before it gets within half a kilometre.
It may be that a threat evaluation has been carried out since the start of the Ukraine invasion and the stock levels can be lower than previous.
Let’s face it the Ukraine has done a marvellous job of reducing or reallocating the potential threatening targets.
But more good news for Belfast.
Spot on.
For how long? The thing to remember is once out of this war, Russia will be replacing it’s entire inventory. They don’t have an issue with spending their oil money on it. That will mean some major upgrades to the Russo-sino inventory. They will have to find some way to defeat ATGM’s.
At the end of this war they will remain sanctioned. They will have minimal access to western tech. Their oil and gas industry will be excluded from western markets depriving them of 90% of the hard currency they will need to circumvent those sanctions. Their economy will be permanently damaged and wholly dependent on China. Probably the biggest problem they face will also remain the organised crime gang headed by Putin will continue to syphon vast sums out of the Russian state to pay for their obscene lifestyles. What’s left of Russian military power will take at least a generation to recover if ever.
I doubt they will remain sanctioned. Sooner or later both sides will head to the peace table and the west will have to throw in some carrots to help it along.
Russia will remain sanctioned as the world realised that Putin and friends are dangerous creating war and misery. Also, Europe finally saw how Russia controlled them using the gas and petrol. Energy independence is main priority for EU and UK and that excludes automatically Russia from the equation.
It is time for new cold war but this time Russia does not control Eastern Europe.
Sanctions should be imposed on China as they became even more dangerous in the last 10 years, stealing patents and brains from the west, crating huge army and arsenal. They will attack Taiwan but the question is When??
If you think we have a cost of living crisis now, imagine what it would be like if we sanctioned China. Inflation would go into hyper inflation levels.
They also would have nothing to lose by attack taiwan, so it would basically be forcing their hands.
Yes they will try to upgrade, but if there is one simply huge lesson to be learnt from this conflict it is an old saying.
“Russia is never as strong as it looks”.
It has been shown to be quite useless, the new post Cold War conventional weapons are paper Tigers and the rate of production is pitiable.
The Ukraine has been hammered but it has smashed the heart out of the Russian Army, fought it to a stand still, run rings round it and shown the world what it really is.
Corrupt, ineffective and delusional.
Does Russia still manufacture T-72s and older models? Genuinely asking because I don’t know and it seems like these make up the bulk of their armoured force in the context of winning through attrition.
If a few thousand NLAWs aren’t enough, it’s not because there are too many T-90s and T-14s. It would be an overwhelming number of cheaper MBTs which currently Russia is able to pull from storage. If they aren’t actively producing them though, their only options for production after the war are the newer models which they can’t afford in the same volume.
No they don’t, so the stocks are finite. Russia really cut back its Tank building capacity post Cold War.
Present production centres around the T90m which is a further development of the T72.
The much vaunted T14 seems to be very stealthy and like some mystical animals only appears rarely and avoids anyone nasty or and possibility of it getting dirty.😉
@ABDRodney “Russia is never as strong as it looks”. I think we are missing the fact when it reorganised its fighting ‘brigade’ to modernise in 2015. It still leaned towards facing a traditional Army with set piece tank battles. Obviously, the three things that have made the difference in this theatre are Precision munitions, drones and ATGM’s. Without these, Ukraine would have most likely been defeated.
Russia’s all-arms formation would still churn through a lot of present foes if warfighting is done under their terms. A brigade that contains two regiments of anti-air, would restrict most foes ability to get air dominance. Don’t get me wrong, I am certainly not cheering for Russia, it’s just this war hasn’t given them the opportunity lean on their traditional strengths.
So long as NLAWs continue to reduuce the stockpile of Russian tanks I’m not worried 😉
That’s fine. Afterall, that is what they were designed and bought for; sending Russian armour into the sky.
Obviously it would be nicer to never have to use them, but Russia asked for it.
Yeah for sure, I would send our entire stock to Ukraine but would then place an order to replace them 1 for 1.
500 to be delivered in 2023 and “several thousand” in 2024-2026. The new order fails to replace what was donated to Ukraine let alone what has been used by UK forces in training exercises etc.
Given one number is much larger than the other what you said doesn’t really make sense in the order you said it. It also doesn’t really matter if the NLAW’s aren’t replaced so fast since its one of the few weapons we bought a lot of. The ones in Ukraine are actually blowing up Russian tanks, which is what they were designed for. Hopefully production will be ramped up though and some orders come in from Eastern Europe.
Is there any way of upgrading the range of these? Because the range is very short!
It’s far enough away to engage without getting incoming small arms fire from the infantry that (should be) supporting the tank…
It is on the shorter end but has proven extremely capable. Especially in the hedgerows and woodlands of Eastern Europe where line of sight isn’t necessarily much greater than the max range. Pretty much excelled in the arena it was designed for. Murdering Russian tanks in Europe.
There’s aren’t actually very dense or close together hedgerows in most of Ukraine, the majority of fields are very large compared to the UK, but 800m is still a very good range for such a man-portable and easy to use system, and it wouldn’t surprise me if they’re still effective out to 900m in practice.
Basically every other AT weapon in this class has a maximum effective range of about 400-600m against a static target, and maybe 200m against a moving one. They require a decent amount of experience to pull off those shots and need to hit weak spots to inflict significant damage against MBTs. NLAWs are easy to use, the PLOS guidance system eliminates much of the need for skill or luck against static and moving targets, it outranges other weapons in its class, and can pop even the most heavily armoured tanks like tin cans with its OTA mode. Upgrades would be great, but it still eclipses pretty much everything right now.
Actually the range is really long for what it is which is a light anti tank weapon. We also use Javelin which performs a different role and is short ranged compared to systems it replaced.
The much more expensive Rapier is the British Army’s long range weapon
NLAW is especially effective in built up areas firing from buildings
Oh dear Javelin
😂 👍
Exactly javelin is the longer heavier and expensive range option and beyond that you get into vehicle or air based systems, it’s swings and roundabouts with layered options. As a one shot weapon it would be pointless upgrading NLAWS significantly and expensively to something different as long as it does the job, it’s effectively the army’s last ditch weapon and near perfect for the task.
Javelin range is a big problem for Ukranians, while they expected a short range for NLAW they are disappointed with Javelin. Thye just say Russian stay too distant for use.
No not really. NLAW was designed to replace the LAW80 and the small stock of AT4s we had. As such it had to be man portable, ie not weigh too much, so that a bod with full kit can add it to their pack for a patrol, tabbing to the target etc. So it’s just over a meter long but only weighs around 12.5kg.
If you want to make it go further you have several options. One is to make it longer/wider to hold more fuel. Another is to replace the energetics, ie the rocket fuel with one that produces more thrust. The first one means it will weigh more and probably be more unwieldy. The second may mean it can’t be soft launched anymore due to the higher exhaust temperature.
The other issue is that the rocket is pretty much unguided. At the start you do lead the target for the predictive line of sight targeting. But once it’s launched it is in free flight. The operator has no more interaction with it. So if the target is past 1km, there is more chance for error of the rocket missing. But if you start adding a guidance package you start adding more weight.
NLAW’s range is just right for the role it is used for, ie close infantry support. Where it can be used against armoured vehicles or fortifications. If they need to engage targets further away, that is the job of Javelin and the JTAC operator. Now if they could make Javelin’s CLU much lighter?
I’ve seen it reported that the new CLU (LWCLU) weighs 25% less than the current version.
Aah I was about to say I thought I had read something in that regard.
Never had the chance to fire Javelin, though I’ve been next to one a few times. Handled the CLU a few times though and it’s a right pain to carry. So the lightweight version will be welcomed by all.
From what I’ve read, the new lightweight CLU can also be used for Stinger, so you’ve got a single comand/launch unit that can fire different types of round- handy.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/the-army-is-now-firing-stinger-missiles-from-a-javelin-launcher
The newest CLU is lighter and newer variants of the javelin are coming with extended range/capabilities. The problem is that jav is a US System and so we have to buy off the shelf versions therefore we have less control.
A better option would be (as SFSG and SF do) run Karl Gustaf launchers which would allow personnel to engage using HEAT, HESH, ASM, Frag, HEDP, Smoke, Illum rounds from a single launcher. A riflemen can be trained to aim off for a target using practice rounds (all of which are available) and more rounds can be carried by one rifleman than a single launcher and therefore a lot more rounds by a section. The rounds carried can then be tailored to a specific mission.
It would also streamline training as one weapon system covers 3/4 single use weapons systems. This has a secondary effect of reducing waste and backloading of spent cart cases, makes resupply, storage, transport easier as the rounds are less bulky and heavy. I’m sure the boffins at BOFORs could come up with a OTA round to take out a tank removing the guidance system to be fired from a Karl Gustaf.
Wonder whether, by the end of this current unpleasant imbroglio, roles may be reversed, and UKR troops begin holding tutorials, re lessons learned, for NATO’s benefit? Ukrainians are becoming a seasoned army from the beginning state of a largely citizen based militia, forged in the crucible of war. Didn’t their forefathers have a relatively fearsome reputation, circa WW II?
Much further back than that. There are some good history tubes that cover the origins of the Ukrainian people’s ethnic origins and society, back when Kiev was a sprawling city and Moscow was a hamlet. The warrior tribes of that area mingled somewhat with Scandinavian warrior tribes and ended up ascendant for centuries.
I think you would be correct. Ukraine are not only fighting the Russians. But they are also using kit that we would also use if the cack hit the fan. We and NATO have not been in a peer/near peer fight for quite some time. So this will be the first real evidence on how it performs when employed in peer combat.
I fully expect that we will fully debrief Ukraine on how the kit worked, but also how the tactics we taught worked or were improved.
I’d imagine that NATO comanders are itching for lessons learned and training sessions with Ukrainian forces at all levels- I’ve no doubt they’re already getting the high level lessons learned stuff.
They are designed to be short range weapons and thus are cheaper and somewhat lighter than longer range missiles, such as US Javelin which the Ukrainians also have.
NLAW is the British army’s equivalent of the RPG, and as far as I’m aware is the only one in NATO or “potential oponent” inventory that has even rudimentary guidance. Most of those systems have an effective firing range of between 250 m and 400 m, even if their rocket motors will push them out further than that. The guidance means that the range of the NLAW is more easily achievable against moving targets, as well as those that are stationary. So in it’s class it’s actually very good.
We have Javelin for the longer range ATGW weapons slot, which has a range of 2,500 m to 4,000 m depending on version.
We also have Javelin for longer range targets.
The US has sent 1,000,000 155 mm artillery rounds to Ukraine which is firing 4,000 to 7,000 artillery rounds of all caliber each day.
And the US has just ordered their replacement. 6,000 more shells per month from next year and 20,000 more a month from 2025.
Hopefully we follow suit and start manufacturing more munitions as well.
That job is already in hand. The British plant has been making 105,155mm shells then they get filled
Source pleae?
Open source
https://www.thedefensepost.com/2022/11/17/uk-bae-artillery-shell-production/
Source given and your silence is notable and of course, amusing.
Excellent
This replenishment exercise is obviously essential but I guess that their effectiveness will reduce as more and more countries learn how to counteract and develop and deploy systems such as Trophy. Hopefully we are looking forwards and investigating and investing in next generation weapons also.
Exactly! Always need to keep thinking about the threat ahead. Russia (and China) will eventually come up with counters to the current generation as they now have captured systems to hand.
Not wrong but presently Russia has very few tanks that are remotely modern and the T80s and T90s (very few available of the latter) are still being taken out. The Armata is an unknown quality but again few exist didn’t perform too well by all accounts on trial in Libya and they won’t use them in Ukraine so that they can still be deemed a ‘super weapon’ in pr without having to test the theory. If a large proportion of their tanks were of the latest on paper capability, that would perhaps be concerning but they are no where near that and the present scenario means it will be much longer before even a significant number would be a threat in resisting such a weapon and I’m sure next, next generation NLAWS is being considered in the labs for when that might happen probably in the next decade.
Being complacent would be the worst, so of course it needs to be developed further.
But active protection systems have yet to really prove their effectiveness against the NLAW or Javalin. Add in dodgy manufacturing procurement of both Russia and China, and whatever they come up with may not be worth much.
There is always ongoing research, it never stops.
Hopefully we can get some export orders as well in the future.
There’s a long queue for UK systems in east and central europe thanks to how successful they’ve been in Ukraine. The big problem is supplying the demand.
Wars are incredibly efficient in separating the wheat from the chaff in terms of the effectiveness of weapon systems.
Recently released list of what the US military will be purchasing to expand/replenish stocks:
864,000 155mm rounds, including XM1128, XM1113, M107, and M795 rounds;
2,050 155m Excalibur M982A1 rounds;
12,000 AGM–179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missiles (JAGM);
700 M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS);
1,700 MGM–140 Army Tactical Missile Systems (ATACMS);
2,600 Harpoons;
1,250 Naval Strike Missiles;
106,000 Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS);
3,850 PATRIOT Advanced Capability–3 (PAC–3) Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missiles;
5,600 FIM–92 Stingers;
28,300 FGM–148 Javelins;
5,100 AIM–120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM);
2,250,000 Modular Artillery Charge System (MACS);
950 Long Range Anti-Ship Missiles (LRASM);
3,100 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSM);
1,500 Standard Missle–6 Missiles (SM–6); and
5,100 Sidewinder Missiles (AIM–9X).
Pedigree – Saab incorporated Bofors,renowned AA guns used by UK in WW2. Thales Belfast was Shorts.
I noted that the minimum range of the NLAW is 20m..! If that is right I don’t think I’d want to stand that close to a T72 I’m about to hit with an NLAW, given the way the turrets come off..!
Good to see we are getting replacements of a very effective light weight weapon.
Cheers CR
There was a video from early in the war which showed a Ukrainian infantryman on the third storey of a building, shooting almost directly down onto a Russian t-72. The NLAW was within its minimum range and so it harmlessly bounced off the back of the T-72s turret, albeit with the fuel starting a nice fire on the tank
Weird it’s says 47 comments but there is only 35. I replied to someone and it’s disappeared 👻
Different topic but per an answer from Alex Chalk, minister of defence procurement, Ajax has passed its noise and vibration tests after modifications. It will start growth and reliability testing in January..
I google searched for the answer from Alex Chalk without sucess. Do you have a reference or link?
Re Ajax, I’m not sure why the parliamentary answer has not been widely reported. If reliability growth trials are to restart in January after sound and vibration problems were resolved and further user validation testing was successful, the Ajax programme will go ahead.