MBDA is positioning its Surface-Launched Brimstone (SLB) missile as a key solution for the British Army’s Light Forces Overwatch requirement.
This capability was demonstrated during the DVD 2024 event, where MBDA showcased its Wolfram project — integrating the Brimstone missile onto a Supacat HMT platform.
The Wolfram project focuses on meeting the British Army’s need for a long-range anti-armour system, designed to provide critical support to battle groups. The system promises enhanced battlefield capabilities with its rapid firepower and increased flexibility.
Speaking about the Surface-Launched Brimstone system, Paul from MBDA highlighted, “The Surface Launched Brimstone will provide the army with a capability for defeating armour that they haven’t had for the last decade. It will provide them with flexibility, increasing lethality and survivability through mobility on its Supacat platform.”
Paul also discussed the collaborative effort between MBDA and the Army, explaining, “The Brimstone synthetic environment we brought here today will show the British Army how the weapon system can be operated so that they can dictate to us how it could be employed in the battle space. There is mutual learning to be done. We’re here to support them, and they’re here to support us.”
The Brimstone system is designed to be versatile, capable of engaging targets while on the move, performing both direct and indirect fire, and delivering multiple rounds to hit a target simultaneously.
With these capabilities, MBDA is positioning the Brimstone system as a strong contender for the British Army’s Light Forces Overwatch requirement, ensuring the Army is equipped for the challenges of future conflicts.
At @dvd_event, we’re showcasing our new synthetic environment with the surface launched #Brimstone weapon system at the @BritishArmy stand. 🚀
🎙️Hear Paul discuss how Light Forces Overwatch provides a counter mass solution, demonstrating the versatility of the Brimstone… pic.twitter.com/gil2Twlqgb
— MBDA UK (@MBDA_UK) September 19, 2024
Odd title.
This is the obvious choice for MCCO, but with the addition of heavier Ajax or Boxer launch options would become a more rounded system that works better with any of our mobile formations.
Agree about the headline. How many decades since the original Brimstones started as a UK Hellfire variant? Not this century.
Unfortunately Boxers would come with a more rounded price tag as well as a more rounded performance. Especially if you have a load of the Supacats lying around after a cancelled programme.
Another interesting capability for mounting on the supacat HMT common base platform..it’s a shame budgets are what they are because this along with the 1220mm mortar would make a real difference around firepower for light cavalry regiments and the three core brigade combat teams in first division.
I know that it’s a mis-type, but I still would like to see the unveiling of Babcock’s new 1220 mm mortar- for when there isn’t an airlifter to deliver a daisy cutter!
You mean you’ve never seen the 1220mortar in action….😂🤣😵💫
I’m just hoping it’s a breech loader, because hoisting one to drop it down the barrel would require mortarmen built like Eddie Hall…
Less Eddie Hall and more Warhound Titan from 40K.
You don’t push the shell into the breech, you drop the barrel around the shell!
Ah, don’t tell me I’ve written that somewhere?
Hi, George
I wouldn’t usually complain but, why are so many duplicate articles appearing here at the moment? They often seem to be one written by you and one by Lisa, based on the same press release.
Is it deliberate or just a coordination problem?
It is so irritating. Are they ever actually going to buy something or will this kit end up like every UAV program we get involved in, looking but not actually buying and getting into service.
Brimstone with the Light Cav Regs on Supacat, 120mm Mortar with the infantry. Seems such a no brainer.
CGS talks big of doubling them tripling lethality. That cannot be just in ISTAR and SA, increase firepower! Until then, it is yet more hot air.
Of course, there is the issue that should Opfor have effective drones, it will be hot air around the crew of the supercat with unwelcome shrapnel added to the mix.
I understand the idea, just disagree with supercat as a platform.
Evening mate.
It gets to the point that drones are becoming so effective a vehicle under armour is also vulnerable.
Cannot make the jump to all autonomous robotic vehicles yet so in the meantime, like in all forms of warfare, a counter will have to develop.
So, do you want taxpayer money put into, ostensibly, RRA defensive capability or Strike offensive?
It’s a huge problem, financially.
It is. There’s no choice but both. The Army has ongoing CUAS programs.
Its like the Ch3, an offensive asset and spend money so all have Trophy, a DAS? Yes, a must.
There’s the nubs. No money.
This DefRev is going to be slated, but, I’d suggest, steady as she goes and cut back on new systems.
Painful, very painful, moment, coming up for Defence.
Isn’t the title meant to be Brimstone, not hellfire. Always great to have something like this. But surely they can fit more on? The hardpoint mockup can atleast take three in a small footprint.
The photo shows a launcher unit for 8 missiles. STRIKER had 5 Swingfire on the roof and 5 reloads inside the wagon.
I still have my FV102 Striker somewhere, i think it was Matchbox build. It would even fire matches :)))
I know it has 8, but there has been mock-ups that have a few more on a similar footprint. I guess you don’t want to lose too many if it gets hit.
I’ll back you up there on the original title, Coll, and see it’s since been changed. It sure confused me too.
I’m not clear – is the idea that the rear modules would be transferable (maybe not like Boxer but possible). So could this also transfer onto the armoured cab version?
It looks like that. They have both called overwatch, so I can only imagine they are.
There seem to be a lot of systems in the pipeline, badly needed in most cases, but current government noises seem to suggest that, instead of increasing defence spending, defence spending is going to suffer cuts. How many of these projects are liable to survive?
I think there “might” be a distinction in messaging here coming from the treasury (and MOD). And it’s getting confused in public.
MOD and the TLBs have been asked to dramatically cut spending IN YEAR to close the black hole.
There is less mood music around longer term recapitalisation and reduction. SDR though will seek to priories spending on capability that the review seems critical to the future fight. Read into that what you want.
One interesting piece of news from the inside this week. Levine funding ceases at the end of September and all funding delegation to the TLBs will be withdrawn back to the centre.
*prioritise
I have not heard the term ‘Levine funding’ before so please can you explain? If TLB funding is withdrawn back to the Centre then there will no longer be TLBs. That would be crazy.
Levine reform was the creation of the TLBs with delegated responsibility for funding. I think the aim by withdrawing the delegation is to ensure joined up thinking on future capability.
There seemed to be a lot of surprise where I was sat last week….
Not sure how much there was a feeling that the TLBs have so rarely balanced their books and the equipment programme is so dire that they might as well centralise it anyway.
You’re writing in English, speaking Dutch.
Can you broaden out Levine and TLBs, please?
Lord Levine led review in 2010 that led to delegation of budgets to the single services, Defence Equipment and Support, and Defence Infrastructure Organisation (abd Strategic Command?) – which became Top Level Budgets.
Thanks BobA
😀
Thanks. I was aware of TLBs but not that they had been set up on the recommendation of Sir Peter Levene. I was also not aware that they had rarely balanced their books – quite a shock to me.
Me neither. Well aware of what a TLB is and who Levine was though.
Depends on how good a case can be made for each one. Being able to actually define what the armed forces are for and expected to do.
A good military case may not be a good political case and I doubt it would ever be considered a good financial case – financially, they are all a matter of spending money on something that, in a sane world society, wouldn’t be needed.
Bit of a cheeky title there George, trying to make us think that the British Army had punted on the domestic option in favour of Hellfire/JAGM again?!
Looks like a good capability, especially if the launch box is the same as containerised/Boxer/ tracked versions. I don’t expect the whole surrounding module would necessarily be drag and drop, but you’d still get commonality of spares, tools, potentially sighting/cuing systems etc.
I believe these or similar have already seen use in Ukraine, so a proven platform would be highly useful.
GL Brimstone? They’ve certainly launched normal (old model 1 or 2) Brimstone from ad-hoc launch rails on the back of a mobile sandwich van. I believe “proper” GL Brimstone has a couple of refinements, but could be wrong.
There’s been surprisingly little reported on it to be honest, I’ve seen a few photos of the launch rig, and I think maybe 2 videos of the outcome of the strikes filmed by drones at quite some distance. I’m not sure whether that’s due to limited opportunity, effectiveness, or some other reason.
It’s not hellfire then is it.
I’ll never forget that video of a spread of Brimstones from a Tornado taking out an entire armoured column in Libya I think. Awesome.
Whatever launch vehicle is chosen, GL Brimstone would be a big boost in firepower for light units. Whether it makes sense to lose Boxers from their other roles or choose a supacat platform, I’m not sure. MBDA have data sheets for both options.
In the past then LRATGM was launched from CVR(T) ie STRIKER. So if there was any logic pertaining, the Brimstone would be launched by its successor, a turretless AJAX variant.
No reason though why it could not however be mounted on any other platform.
Except crews extreme vulnerability to counter fire?
Isn’t every vehicle including MBTs now vulnerable to precision top attack munitions? Either platform shown on MBDA website would be able to shoot and scoot.
ATGMs are pretty accurate. Would you often get counter-fire back from a smoking target?
I’m sorry?
Open vehicles are wide open to air burst.
Might have been great in WW2 SAS heroes, but, given the prevalence of arty, tad dangerous today. You know better, of course because you walked Northern Ireland streets and stepped outside the wire in Afghanistan, didn’t you, Sir?
The Supacat platform shown by MBDA is an armoured cab version.
Brimstone ARES already demo’d by GD Graham👍
Great! I assume demo was successful. Just better get it ordered. Its been too long since Swingfire mounted on FV438 and CVR(T) was phased out, and a capability gap created.
Brimstone is in service, so go for it. Why select another missile when you can have commonality, reduced logistics and quantity price reductions?
Lots of warm words on British Army Requirements but no orders on any thing. 3 or 4 years of talking with nothing to show for it in regard to just about every thing, Light gun replacement, AS90 replacement, mobile mortar anti drone more Shorad etc etc. Warrior replacement it goes on with no orders.
My cynicism?
A lot of it gets announced as the “Carrots” in the SDSR and “because of these “uplifts” such and such has to go.
They’ve done it before.
Watch….
The Army will not get half this kit, the Government will not put the money up, the SDR will be a review hiding cuts and no more money as always. As a nation we have ordered 12 SHORAD systems and 14 FH77 for the Army and some light weight recce vehicles, that is it. Its pie in the sky smoke and mirrors.
Its a farce like saying this what we could have, need but are not getting example RCH155 non ordered just warm words. While we give away AS90, and half our SHORAD
Half our SHORAD?
We have given 6 Stormer and some LMM to UKR mate.
HMV and LMM are all being renewed. As are Javelin and NLAW stocks.
The AS90 is the one they cannot quickly remedy.
But yes, that’s what reviews and governments do, hide things in positive spin.
How many Stormer with HVM were in service? ie operational, we gave 6 away. Javelin and NLAW are not being renewed to the level they were. Could speed up AS90 replacement if we bought RCH155 instead of just talking about it, and window shopping.
Not sure.
12 RA, which is our SHORAD Regiment, has recently expanded with an additional LMM Battery.
I believe there are 4 Stormer HVM Batteries, and 2 LMM Batteries, as the HQ Battery I read also has LMM mounts now.
How many Stormer per Battery I’m uncertain, I have listed 12 per Battery but that is just educated guesswork on my part.
We gave 6 away, yes, and that is why 12 Rapid Ranger are being procured as a cheap, quick, interim replacement.
You say NLAW and Javelin are “not being renewed to the level they were.”
I don’t think anyone can say for certain beyond the army and the MoD themselves. Contracts are in place, and production expanded.
When people bemoan numbers, they often forget the very reason we could supply Ukraine as rapidly as we could is that we had a considerable number in stock ready to use. I did not see other European nations supplying that number, that quickly?
RCH155 I believe is still under development so how quickly it can be accelerated I am uncertain.
I would have preferred an OTS purchase from Korea with additional builds here as they proposed, but Sunak reportedly intervened.
In itself a talking point. Did he chose RCH 155, and did the Army have any input?
RCH155 is in service in Ukraine/on order. Why do not buy any is strange its like we look at every thing but pick nothing. We most likely gave away too many Javelin and NLAWS. Was it the right thing to do yes and no.
No idea how many HVM LLM there are per Bty but be surprised if its as high as 12.
My whole point we window shop, talk warm words but buy little. Smoke and mirrors to make look like something is being done. Archer a good system but only 14! for loss of over 50 AS90.
We will not see a light gun replacement or RCH155 in service before 2027,
No, we probably won’t!
Luckily the military and Intelligence Community will know better than us when we may end up needing them, so as always it is a calculated risk.
True, got rid of all the out stock, but others know things we do not. Always a risk but could not do nothing either hard balance.
I’ve mentioned this before about the RCH 155, it’s a good question how much input did the Army have ? for me it was just a Sunak deal to be nice to Germany.Should of just gone for more Archer platforms has in service and we know it works. 👍
According to MoD, RCH-155 first needs further development.
Its in service with Ukraine, i get what MOD are saying but still no orders for it.
MoD has ordered 623 Boxers, 589 Ajax and 148 CR3s, don’t forget. New Apaches are coming into service.
I do get though that some kit ordered is the wrong kit, that some orders are insufficient in numbers and some orders haven’t yet been made that should have.
We do know that AS-90 replacement is Boxer RCH-155 and that (incredibly) Boxer MIV is now deemed to replace Warrior IFV although that is a terrible decision.
623 Boxers have been ordered in two tranches and there should be more to follow.
Good, I hope it gets procured.
I said a few times that I think the British Army needs Brimstone or something like it to provide quick reaction stand off precision fires.
Cheers CR
Think the Army would be lucky to get this System, with this government .But fingers crossed 🇬🇧
The RAF use Brimstone on jets.
For logistics reasons alone use it for ground launch overwatch.
Fit it where you can on anything to be honest.
Also bin JAGM off Apache and integrate Brimstone.
Fit it to RN vessels as a close in Boghammer blatter!
Big quantity orders are cheaper.
Spend in the short term to save in the med-long term.