MBDA has been awarded a contract by Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) to provide the Mistral ATAM anti-air missile system for the Korean Marine Attack Helicopter (KMAH).

The system is built upon the Mistral short-range anti-air missile, renowned for its ‘fire-and-forget’ capability, operational simplicity, and high kill probability.

Eric Béranger, CEO of MBDA, said here, “We are proud to be partnered again with Korea Aerospace Industries to arm a Korean military aircraft.” He further noted the Mistral ATAM’s recognition as “a world’s leading helicopter launched anti-air missile system.”

It is designed to be mounted with two launchers per helicopter, each armed with two missiles, thus bolstering the aerial defensive capability.

The integration of the Mistral ATAM by MBDA also complements the existing arsenal of the Republic of Korea, which includes the man-portable variant of the Mistral air defence system currently in service.

You can read more by clicking here.

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

51 COMMENTS

  1. Not bad hum? Normal, ut’s French… 😉
    I don’t know what is happening with this missile. We are selling it everywhere…

    • From what I understand its cheap and highly capable, which means militaries around the world can fill capability gaps without spending a fortune on US gold standard gear.

      Thid is always the UK problem with exports, its gear is also top end but expensive, as not made in numbers that the US make, and doesn’t come with the value add that the US miltiary brings around your security. The UK military is strong but it can’t defend anyone on its own.

      • It has been something that was discussed a lot when I was on my DE&S tour. Where the majority of our kit was gold standard, where sometimes a bronze standard would be sufficient. It was felt that splitting the purchase would have a detrimental effect, if things kicked off and we need to fight a peer, especially on a fixed budget.

        Though I believe there is still a valid case for a spilt capability.

      • It’s not cheap as MANPADS go…far more expensive than Stinger…close to twice as expensive.

        But it has an advantage. Its one of the few that has a setup that has been integrated and tested on helicopters. Hence this sale…which won’t be particularly large…

        South Korea actually makes its own highly capable MANPADS called Chiron, however they’ve never integrated it to helicopters

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KP-SAM

        The US Stinger is integrated with some helicopters, but all production is pretty much reserved for US re-supply in the short term, with the US also developing its next generation MANPADS at present.

        So in short…if you want a specifically helicopter fired IR homing MANPADS in a reasonable timeframe this is one of the few that is available…the only other ‘Western’ one available at present with a reasonable timeframe is the Turkish Sungur.

        • US has ordered a replacement for stinger as they have classified the existing hardware as redundant. Manpads are cheaper still but useless against most platforms, as it doesn’t have the range or automation to exist in the modern battle field.

          • The Stinger replacement has not been ordered yet.

            Raytheon and LM are competing for the requirement. They have 2 years to build and test their proposal, followed by a ‘fly off’ against each other. They’ll then both continue to develop for a further 3 years, responding to any improvements requested by the DoD before a final decision is made….

            In practice that means the Stinger replacement will not be entering service, even in limited numbers until past 2030…full rate production will only be reached a few years after….

            So US MANPADS full production will be at least 10 years away, and then production will be for the US only for the first few years at least as they will need to replace old Stinger’s….

          • It shouldn’t be so difficult to speak English on an UK website, it is?
            Deepl is your friend…

            You shouldn’t force the “locals” to translate your comments, that’s what we call respect.

            And before you start to burn your keyboard, I’m French.

            Always does what you expect others to do for you.

  2. A little bit off-topic but very interesting nonetheless.

    November 01, 2023 at 7:55 AM

    MBDA is considering a new hypersonic anti-tank weapon, officials told Breaking Defense during a recent tour of the weapons firm’s German facilities.
    
    “The idea has been in the ether at MBDA for years, though Zimper declined to comment if a demonstrator had been produced yet. Already some explosively formed projectile munitions already travel at about Mach 4.5, but an anti-tank hypersonic munition would up that speed to at least Mach 5, the standard definition of hypersonic speed.

    A subsidiary for MBDA, however, is looking at much faster speeds for hypersonic missiles in general. On the tour, a spokesperson for Bayern Chemie said it was involved in the design of “new materials for hypersonic applications,” including a new propellant design that could be combined with Ramjet technology to achieve speeds of Mach 6 or 7.”

    LINK

    • What would that do for troops near the weapon? Travelling at Mach 5 + close to the ground? Is the shockwaves, noise dangerous?
      I know starstreak darts can do a lot of damage at Mach 3 so double that is going to make a mess.

      • Hi Monkey Spanker, I’m guessing the shock wave will cause some damage, but at what distance? The shrapnel from the exploding tank will also be a factor.

    • Hypersonic near hypersonic…its semantics with definitions.
      Soviet /Russian Anti ship missiles where doing M4.5 in the 60s (at altitude) when they came lower they slowed.

      if its doing M4.5 or M5 nobody is going to get worried about an extra 300mph its still going to ruin your day.

  3. I thought the Starstreak also has this ability too? Have the UK helos got any AAM’s, or, maybe it’s more, if not, why not?

    • Martlet/Starstreak (mostly the same, different speeds) has both Air-Surface and Air-to-Air capabilities, but crucially it’s not fire and forget- you have to hold the laser targeting matrix on the target all the way in. It’s fast, so doesn’t take too long, but not as capable as Mistral in that respect.
      Aside from Martlet on RN helos, I’m not sure we do carry any A-A missiles, although I think that Apache comes with capability for Stinger or Sidewinder baked in. Don’t quote me on that though…

  4. A nice missile, although potentially a bit limited in application if it’s just a rotary wing A2A missile. Is there a surface-launch version available as well, or an air-surface weapon with different warhead and seeker? Hard to work out scale, but how does it compare to Martlet? If they use the same body then may be a case for getting them for the British armed forces.
    Commonality like that is always a win!

    • I don’t know about the range of Martlet/Starstreak. What I know from Starstreak is that it is a pain, because no counter measure exists except flying away from visual range. Mistral is a bit heavier than the stinger (2 men portable system) but better suited on a chassis. Infrared guidance, range announced around 5km, but some say 9km, speed around Mach 2. It is AA and surface to air missile. Service ceiling pretty descent above 10000 feet provinding a neat humbrela. Probability of kill around 98%, but I don’t know how this is measured. In France, we equipe in a hurry dozens of vehicule called Serval with the launcher to provide a first cover for contact troups. Place them on a hill and they will cover battle space for some time. It will have to be complemented with guns 40mm CTA. But here I heard the cost per round was too expensive, so… let’s see.

      • Like you, I was pretty hopeful that the CTAS40 would be used widely, but it doesn’t look that way at the moment. Small use means small ammunition requirement, which means high cost per round… But caseless ammo is the next step for infantry weapons as well as autocannon like the CTAS, it’s just going to be expensive to implement for the first few users.

    • Mistral is fundamentally a MANPAD as per a Stinger. Both missiles have had in the past the ability to be fitted to helicopters. With the Mistral being integrated on French Tigers and Stinger being integrated on Apaches. As a MANPAD it is used in a manually operated dual fit (SINBAD) on a lot of French ships, such as the Mistral LHDs. Though the French Navy have been seriously looking at improving the Mistrals air defences. As they have recognized that the ship is vulnerable to shore based anti-ship missiles. the Missile has been integrated in an 6 round automated turret, along with fitting it along side an automatic cannon for close in air defence.

      Mistral is a similar size to Martlet, it uses a different body. If the UK Forces went for Mistral, then jobs in Belfast would be at risk, where Starstreak and Martlet are produced.

      • Thanks Davey, that’s helpful.
        I guess the question might become whether the Mistral seeker could be integrated into Starstreak or Martlet- to make a missile we already produce capable of fire and forget. However, if I understand correctly, the guidance system on Martlet is on the tail for laser matrix riding, so bolting an IR seeker on the front may be impossible.

        • Martlet uses the same targeting system as Starstreak. In that it uses a combination of semi-automatic control line of sight (SACLOS) and a laser grid over laid on the target to determine the distance/angle between the missile and the target. As the missile’s sensors are in the tail looking back at the command unit for command/steering updates. It makes it nigh on impossible for it to be jammed or spoofed by countermeasures. However, it does mean that the opera\tor must maintain a cross hair on the target, so it’s not fire and forget (yet!).

          MIstral uses an infrared sensor. It is not the one used in ASRAAM, it does not have the same resolution. It does operate on a similar wavelength though. As it is a “heat seeker” it is a fire and forget missile. It does not have a data-link for course corrections. Unlike Starstreak/Martlet in can be jammed and spoofed by countermeasures, especially directed infrared countermeasures (DIRCM). Which are now lasers operating on similar wavelength to the Missile’s seeker fitted into a 2 axis gimbal. They don’t burn out the missile’s seeker, but give it a false target to follow, that is then directed away from the aircraft.

          Of the two systems Mistral is clearly the easier to operate. However a trained person on Starstreak/Martlet, will have a greater than 90%chance of hitting the target. Whilst Mistral is quite a bit less. There is a way of making Starstreak/Martlet more automated, where it could engage more targets simultaneously, to give it a near fire and forget capability. Which is to use a lidar based search and tracking system. If Thales/MoD want to know more I could enlighten them for a small fee!

          • Couldn’t the Carriers, Bays, Albions, Argus and RFAs do with a little trainable SAM Martlet/Starstreak upgrade too if CAMM is too large and more cumbersome? I like the UK’s SEA Ancilia launcher which looks like it could take Martlet/LMM/ Starstreak as well as the decoys. This unit could be very useful on the Carriers and complement the 3 Phalanx’s and in absence of the 30mm.

          • The Navy did try using Martlet on the DS30 mount. If you trawl through Navy Lookout’s archives, they did a piece on the installation and the trial, when it was fitted to HMS Sutherland in 2019. The targeting, firing and hitting of the targets all worked as expected. But there was I believe an issue with Martlet’s exhaust plume. It was striking parts of the ship that weren’t designed to take that kind of heat.

            Bizarrely, as far as I can tell, Martlet does not use the same 2 stage system for getting the missile out of the tube as Starstreak. Where Starstreak uses a very short duration 1st stage booster to push the missile out of the tube. Which literally burns out as the missile leaves the tube. When it is about 20ft from the launcher, the main engine ignites.

            If you see the videos of Starstreak being fired. It has a very short initial exhaust plume compared to Martlet. This is perplexing, as Starstreak has shown it can be fired from moving helicopters, so why is Martlet different? If Martlet used the same system then there wouldn’t be issues mounting it to and firing it from the DS30 mount.

            As far as using Starstreak against an anti-ship missile. Could an operator track a missile, possibly? Thought this could be automated. The 3 darts it uses would be a disadvantage. As they fly in parallel 1.5m apart. So a small diameter missile will likely only face one dart. Plus if all 3 miss and the missile flies down the centerline. The darts don’t have a proximity fuze to take out the missile, as the darts are too narrow for one to be fitted.

            This could be improved by using a unitary missile instead of 3 darts. As that would not only allow space for a larger programmable warhead, but it qcan be detonated by either an impact or proximity fuze.

            If you want to take it a stage further, you could get rid of the 1st stage impulse booster. Replacing it with a gas powered soft launch system within the tube, as per CAMM. Which means the 1st stage could be combined with the 2nd, to increase the missile’s range.

            But would a unitary missile like Martlet be as fast as the 3 Starstreak darts at Mach 4? Sadly not quite, but you could get fairly close. You are restricted by the missile’s available space that can be used for propellant. But as the missile does not need a seeker, cooling system or image processing. Without this mass, there would be space for additional fuel. So as the missile would be lighter than infrared seeker based missile, it would get pretty close to Mach 4.

            With a soft launch system, automation, a unitary missile that has a proximity fuze. It could then be used as an anti-missile missile. But be fitted to the DS30 mount or possibly the SEA Ancilia without damaging the ship.

          • Thanks DB for another fantastic and informative reply. Great to learn from you and others here. Hope you can get that consultation job at the MOD!! And British industry has still got it!

          • “Bizarrely, as far as I can tell, Martlet does not use the same 2 stage system for getting the missile out of the tube as Starstreak.”

            They generate the same effect in practice. The discarding first stage for Starstreak adds cost and complexity to the missile. The kick motor for LMM does the same thing in practice and was used on Blowpipe/Javelin and Starburst.

            “If you see the videos of Starstreak being fired. It has a very short initial exhaust plume compared to Martlet.”

            Starstreak’s kick motor is far, far more violent than LMM’s…the impulse it delivers would do far more damage to anything behind it than LMM’s.

            “As far as using Starstreak against an anti-ship missile. Could an operator track a missile, possibly? Thought this could be automated. The 3 darts it uses would be a disadvantage. As they fly in parallel 1.5m apart. So a small diameter missile will likely only face one dart. Plus if all 3 miss and the missile flies down the centerline. The darts don’t have a proximity fuze to take out the missile, as the darts are too narrow for one to be fitted.”

            Starstreak was proposed for an automated CIWS back in the late 80’s with automatic target tracking, radar and EO/IR on a stabilised shipborne mount with 24 missiles…there were no concerns around it hitting the target.

            https://imgur.com/YXpXJRa

          • HI RB, I have fired Starstreak a couple of times, along with being the spotter and range safety officer. I can categorically say that the exhaust plume generated, which may look huge on slow-mo videos, is in reality not that alarming. Though as as safety rule nothing must be directly behind it by a good 50m, which includes the boss’s landrover (how we laughed). This exhaust plume lasts up to 1 second (normally slightly less). I have never fired Martlet, I moved on to other things, by the time it was being trialled and came into service. I can’t really compare the two, but the vids of Martlet did show a longer flame, again these are all slow-mo, they may give an inaccurate impression..

            However, you are quite right, I have since had a better look at Martlet and it does indeed use a 2 stage rocket motor as per Starstreak.

            I am aware of the 24 round “Seastreak”. I wonder why it hasn’t been developed further as per SeaRAM?

            Performance wise, I know from experience that Starstreak can quite easily knock out a very low and fast flying Banshee. Which are relatively small and quite flimsy. The firing unit in combination with the lasers are very accurate. However, for safety the Banshee is either crossing the line of sight or passing down towards a safe sector at an angle to the firing post. Head on and pass-overs were never allowed on the live range, On the simulator the system knocked out these types of targets with no problems. To the best of my knowledge it hasn’t been used against a missile. The tungsten darts though, would have no issue penetrating the nose or the side of a missile, as they do have a secondary anti light armour role.

            But the question still remains, if these darts are flying 1.5m apart, is there a chance that all three might miss and the missile passes down the centreline? If the darts had a proximity fuze, then they’d have a significantly better chance that all three darts will have an effect on the missile, even if they miss!

      • You may consider this new modular turet intended to supplement or replace the Simbad.
        Sorry it is in French again, but I hope you have a translator at your disposal. Shorad issues are ahead. Laser and microwave and sniping long rangé missile will certainly help, but good old raw firepower seems to be interesting in case of serious conflict.
        In France, many ships are undergunned. And all missile lauching ships still have ton return to port shotgun after firing their long range interceptor. So a cheap and efficient complement may be considered to protect the ship short range, not only a simbad laucher. Hence LMP was developped.

        https://www.naval-group.com/fr/nid-2023-avec-le-lmp-les-lanceurs-font-leur-revolution

        • The French Navy are fitting Nexter RWS turrets to their ships. These use the CTAS 40mm autocannon. There have been a few images from Nexter of a turret fitted with a pair of Mistrals. Which would be the logical step for increasing their effective range.

          Had a look at the LMP turret link, they don’t explicitly say what is fitted to the turret? The presumption is Mistral, 70mm rocket and two other types. Though it does say the rear of the turret has exhaust plume deflectors. Something that the DS30/Martlet turret could have done with perhaps!

          I think the LMP turret would be useful for smaller ships, that don’t have the space for a VLS farm and are only interested in local protection rather than area defence due to the size and weight of missiles the turret can accommodate.

    • Read the article!

      ‘The integration of the Mistral ATAM by MBDA also complements the existing arsenal of the Republic of Korea, which includes the man-portable variant of the Mistral air defence system currently in service.’

      • Not sure how that actually relates to Joe’s point mind which is all about giving equivalent UK missiles a fire and forget mode. Does the article answer that point I very much doubt it.

    • MBDA is 37.5% UK (BAE). Everything achieved or not achieved by MBDA has an effect on UK, either directly or indirectly. This is an expensive business to be in. Yes this a MBDA France missile that UK doesn’t use. If MBDA as a whole doesn’t achieve, UK/France/Italy will have to pay one way or another.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here