The Ministry of Defence has published a pipeline notice for a new assessment phase to develop a future Mounted Short Range Air Defence (SHORAD) capability, signalling continued efforts to modernise the British Army’s ground-based air defences.
Issued on 21 May 2025 by Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S), the notice outlines a £48 million programme to explore vehicle platforms and systems integration options for a new mobile SHORAD capability. The contract is expected to run from 1 August 2025 to 31 December 2028.
The project, referred to as the Mounted SHORAD Fire Unit (MSFU) and Multi Mission System (MMS) Assessment Phase, will inform the selection of platforms and technologies capable of providing both medium-range and short-range air defence in manoeuvre environments.
The system under development is intended to deliver a highly mobile, integrated air defence capability able to protect UK ground forces from threats such as aircraft, helicopters, drones, and potentially cruise missiles. This is part of a broader push to restore layered air defence in the British Army after years of limited capability in this domain.
The contract includes work across several categories, including armoured vehicles, weapons integration, and military vehicle development, and is classified under multiple CPV codes including 35410000 (armoured military vehicles) and 73423000 (development of military vehicles).
This notice is a UK1 pipeline update under the Procurement Act 2023, which requires publication of upcoming contracts above £2 million. It indicates that a formal tender process for the assessment phase is expected to follow, and gives industry early visibility of the opportunity. The procurement is flagged as suitable for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), aligning with the MOD’s policy of increasing SME participation in defence supply chains.
A pipeline notice for a new assessment phase to develop a future capability…. FFS
So..to summarise we can expect bog all improvements to the woeful SHORAD of our armed forces and their bases until this waste of £46 million is chucked out and 3 years later. Guess what? Things will have moved on and still SHORAD won’t have been grappled.
What happened to VAMTAC?
I believe the Vamtecs were a temporary replacement for the Stormers sent to Ukraine.
Yes. But no idea if they’ve actually arrived yet, I’ve not seen any reports.
48 million to assess to 2028?
The MIC is loving it.
In this case an assessment phase is probably valid. Not in the US has the capability to delay with fpv drones or strikes like Russia did involving multiple hundreds of drones. Any existing tech is completely out of date. The ground based phallanx is probably the closest thing to being there but its ammo load is too limited that it would run out far too quickly.
Something like the Gepard combined with something like the hryda 70 rocket pod, is probably the closest thing to be able to deal with the new modern battlefield.
Laser tech and microwave is still a long way from being field deployable due to the amount of electricity needed, which isn’t viable over any length of time. All fine having them plugged into the national grid and showing their capability but only so many batteries a military cross country vehical can handle.
How many Raven could we buy for £48 million?
Raven isn’t ideal, it’ll do for what Ukraine needs (that sounds off, it’ll do when there is nothing else) but its literally a cobble together.
Raven isn’t ideal as it only has 2 missiles. Useful as part of a rapid deployment unit as part of layered air defence system but not as a front line unit acting in isolation.
Given the choice of nothing or Raven in service quickly, I would take Raven.
Ukraine’s at war, so it needs something quickly cobbled together.
The UK isn’t, so we have the time to choose something more effective.
Answer is a lot. But we can’t have something cheap, off the shelf and surprisingly effect. We’ve got to waste 3 years and £46 million on considering the issue until the cows come home.
Problem with Raven is two-fold:
It’s a cobble together that works but may not be ideal, as said previously.
It uses a very high end solution (ASRAAM) with low magazine capacity to the problem of high volume attacks; Russia is sending hundreds of Geran/Shahed drones in waves against Ukraine.
It’s the solution they have, it works, and is a good way of using end of life missiles. But when they run out, you’re needing a huge supply of brand new ones, and a large support unit for all the reloads.
I have to agree with Steve, I may question the cost of the review, but I think we need to look at the options, rather than jump on Raven. Maybe send a few to support our battle group in Lithuania, but it shouldn’t be the long-term solution.
A bird in the hand, is worth two in the bush. As the old saying goes. For British Forces in vulnerable spots (Estonia, Cyprus, Lossiemouth) a Raven battery would be a good near term stop gap, until something fancier can be developed/bought/afforded.
So you want us to buy obsolete air to air missiles… 🤦🏻♂️
Excellent!! Let’s get started shall we? Let’s see, first we’ll commission endless trials to inform future decisions, then a bit of gaining a deeper understanding, and has anyone thought of more agile, more lethal?? Tea and biscuits all round!!
Seriously though, how difficult can it be to mount a Martlet launcher or similar to a Jackal or something?
Its endless. 🙄
Well, the MoD/Treasury must have many years of business class flights, 4/5 star hotels & many excellent lunches before making any decisions.
Darn auto correct. “Not even the US has the capability to deal with fpv drones”
‘Will inform the selection of platforms’….Ares, Boxer, Patria or Toyota?
Just ask Supacat I’m sure they can come up with a version of Raven!
Supacat HMT with a Moog turret that has a 8 missile launchers and, i think, 30mm bushmaster. Check it out.
And a 7.62 mm machine gun
Sorted and no doubt a lot cheaper than£48m 👍
Also module and flexible,.
100 percent agree with you on the moog turret as its interchangeable and easy to adapt to any units need across all branches, buuuut definitely not the sc hmt with all that extra weight and mounted high I reckon it will roll a he’ll of a lot.
I’m sure Supacat would have taken that into consideration. However, a smaller vehicle would be more air transportable and compact. I wonder is a supavat can be adapted to make a shore based anti ship platform, like what the US marines have.
If it’s for drone defense, I’m sure an MSI DS30M MK2 turret on a Supacat truck with the 5 pack Martlet rail would work wonders.
Check out the Supacat HMT with a Moog turret
Fit the German Gepards onto the Bulldogs 😂
The thing is there is now so much need for air defence across multiple levels of capability. Short range air defence now really needs to start at section level, because the risk is now at section level.. a grenade dropped by a first person drone is a risk that needs management at section and platoon level and it needs to be able to manage large numbers.
Then you have larger drones that can launch kinetic effects from range..
Then you have traditional tactical air level ( rotors and ground attack aircraft).
The first two cannot be managed at brigade or even battalion battle group level and instead need a mass of organic short range air defence down to section level ( essentially sections need the ability to detect drones and attack them out to the 1Km range and they need to be able to do this many times).
This then is not traditional Short and medium range air defence capability.. so you then need that as well
1) something to deal with large numbers of attrition sub tactical drones that can carry an effector or 2 with a range of a few Km. So this needs to be able to engage out to about 5km probably gun oriented for impact on mass ( a 40-57mm gun with potentially guided rounds )
2) then the thing that can deal with the traditional tactical air support, so a missile that can engage out to 10km -20km
3) Then you need an air defence for you more strategically important mobile elements, such as you logistic, command and medical hubs as well as you long range fires and tactical air. As well as covering a wider front This falls between tactical and strategic 25-50km range missile system.
4) finally your strategic air defence for your key static hubs and basis.. this should be long range ( 120km +) as well as able to manage stealth and ballistic missiles threats.
Defence in depth.
For section level, I’m thinking 25 or 30mm underslung smart AB grenades instead of the more bulky 40mm, with some sort of helmet mounted directional microphones linked to the sights.
For platoon level, it’s a 4×4 mounted 30mm RWS with smart AB ammo and directional microphones and radar, plus a few Martletts bolted on for bigger targets.
All supported by Land Cepter at a local level, and Airborne systems and a bigger ABM system further back.
The MOD is going to think about it for the next 3 years, no hurry then.
Oh good. Another study. Just what we need.
Will this £48 million actually lead to any actual hardware and weapons? or just a cash chuck out to the defence industry, we know whats out there and what we need surely? there is a real war going on in Ukraine- something with an ASRAAM and gun/ direct energy weapon so we have multi layered approach is required.
Failing an ASRAAM launcher then Martlet/ LMMM with guidance module- we dont need another useless waste of £48 million and a delay in decision making by 3-5 years because we are undertaking a specking exercise. FFS, its not like there is a war on in Europe against an enemy that has repeatedly threatened the UK and would like nothing more than to destroy our armed forces and our way of life.
We need weapons not investigations into potential weapons.
Now now We need at least 3yrs to find the most niche,gucci and expensive bit of kit that will take an absolute age to get into service!
It’s a cash chuck. With little attempt being made to hide the fact these days.
Of course not!
Just more pork thrown at the MIC.
I would expect to see massive amounts of pork thrown at the MIC with the new NATO deal coming up… essentially 1.5% is going be pretty much nothing but pork. It’s what the US wants NATO to do as that’s what the US understands defence to be.
Thing is, there needs to be pork thrown at the conventional military at the same time!!
I don’t see anything.
We await the SDR and your confident predictions post NATO summit.
I agree I have no issue with the MIC getting thrown lots of pork.. it makes good jobs, is good for the economy and vital to win that long peer war you must win.. but you correct it does actually need to be producing something that goes to a military that is in a state to use it.. let’s keep our fingers crossed for that 3.5% new escorts, 30 more F35, 30 more typhoons ( with an extra squadron each ) 40 medium rotors.. 70 odd 155mm systems in hand, another 80 MBTs , 1000 APCs ( cheap ok 25-30 ton ones.. not stupid 40ton hyper expensive ones), 200 IFVs.. a land based anti ballistic missile air defence systems.. and about 5 more regiments of CAMM.. 3 medical regiments, 3 mechanical and electrical engineering regiments 3 logistics regiments… ohhh and 5 more SSNs… it’s not a lot to ask
Whhoooo hooo! Yet another study.
The Americans have already done the leg work for us which SHORAD with Sgt Stout. Moog turret is perfect can integrate hvm/lmm for FW and RW, and cannon for drones with potential to swap out parts as new tech comes in. They have it on stryker but could easily go on patria if that gets selected in the Land mobility program for the rear and potentially a few on ares to provide that close protection
Supacat HMT has a demonstrator with the Moog turret.
Can’t add much to everyone above but wonder if Starstreak and Martlet can get a bit of ER treatment and adapted onto the Paladin platform. Where’s the CAMM MR at? Any mixed CAMM launchers? As suggested by SailorBoy before, a more compact 1/2 CAMM for vehicle launch? Containerised/modular CAMM even Barge CAMM. Trump’s promoting a “Golden Dome” for the USA, surely the UK is doing something quietly behind the scenes?
There’s a few options available for an interim/urgent operational requirement SHORAD out there, whilst a more dedicated capability is created. Why there isn’t an Urgent Operational Requirement to be delivered ASAP, then they can do a proper study into other long-term options, is beyond me.
– Moog is offering a turret solution with eight LMMs, or Starstreak, or a mix of both: with also either a 30mm cannon with air-burst rounds on the HMT-600 chassis, or eight missiles and a 7.62mm machinegun option for the smaller Dingo 3 chassis: they showed it off recently at IAV 2025. Maybe have Moog do a beefed up turret on those same vehicles but with four ASRAAMs instead? Handy if you want longer range & performance than Starstreak, and ASRAAM is in production already.
– Or if you want to reuse the lighter VAMTAC for logistical reasons, simply equip it with two ASRAAMs in place of the four Martlet/Starstreak it currently has due to the weigh limits on the smaller vehicle.
– For a longer term option with better armour/mobility, Germany is working on a Boxer module with four IRIS-T to provide close air defence, whilst also keeping their truck mounted IRIS-T SLM batteries reserved for forces further back. The UK could simply use this Boxer module with ASRAAM instead, ideally also keeping the nice retractable EO/IR sensor already in service in Ukraine. The passive nature of the HMT system was a nasty surprise apparently to Russian helicopters, plus other countries with systems like NASAMs also have a mast mounted passive sensor in addition to radars.
Against drones I am of the opinion that something along the lines of a M134 minigun would be more cost and operationally effective. Plus it could be turned on ground targets if the situation dictates.
Super glue some Startstreak and Martlets on the back of the vehicle of your choice and we should be good to go for SHORAD.
A bit facetious I admit, but how difficult can this be? Sounds like some folks are overthinking this, which inevitably will result in under delivering.