Saab has received an order for RBS 70 Bolide missiles from the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA).

The order value amounts to £27 million and deliveries will take place during 2027.

“Through the order from the NSPA, we see NATO countries continued interest in our missile systems. This order is proof of their trust in our knowledge and in the RBS 70 system,” says Görgen Johansson, head of Saab’s business area Dynamics.

The RBS 70 system has an installed base in more than 19 countries, with 1,600 RBS 70 systems and more than 18,000 missiles delivered. The Bolide missile is the 3rd generation, all-target, short-range air defence missile from Saab.

With the Bolide missile, the RBS 70 system targets a complete threat spectrum: from fixed and rotary wing aircraft, down to small targets such as cruise missiles and UAVs, with a range of more than 9 kilometres and with altitude coverage in excess of 5,000 metres.

NSPA activity covers five areas:

  • Systems Procurement and Life Cycle Management
  • Support to Operations and Exercises
  • Strategic Transport and Storage
  • Logistics Services and Project Management
  • Fuel Management

On their website, NATO describes the NSPA as follows:

“The NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) is NATO’s main services provider, delivering a broad spectrum of integrated capabilities for the Alliance, its member nations and partners. The Agency brings together NATO’s logistics support and procurement activities, providing effective and cost-efficient multinational support solutions. NSPA is a customer-funded agency, operating on a “no profit – no loss” basis.”

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.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

25 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
FieldLander
FieldLander
3 months ago

Problem solved.

Frank
Frank
3 months ago
Reply to  FieldLander

Only if the threats are within 9KM’s away and less than 5000 metres high…… and then only if they are 100% effective….. Recent results in Ukraine and Israel are proving less than fool proof……

Last edited 3 months ago by Frank
Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
3 months ago
Reply to  Frank

… and the Ukranians keep them busy for another 3 years.

Mind you nothing is 100% effective as the Russians know full well, so that’s not a pre requisite for winning let alone surviving an invasion.

Last edited 3 months ago by Spyinthesky
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
3 months ago
Reply to  Frank

Nothing in this world is 100% effective, least of which is defence equipment.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 months ago
Reply to  Graham Moore

But the current generation of NATO/UK kit is an order (or more) of magnitude better than the 1980’s stuff was.

The Russian stuff is 1990’s tech at best.

Martin
Martin
3 months ago

Apart from us, Are short range air defence is poor,

Ryan Brewis
Ryan Brewis
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin

Does any NATO country have decent AD?

Martin
Martin
3 months ago
Reply to  Ryan Brewis

most better than ours we lack long range, short range is poor no guns for close or very short range, guns better at hitting drones and cheaper per shot and more ammo. Sky Saber is about it, and not much of that.

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
3 months ago
Reply to  Martin

The U.K. hasn’t really been in a land situation that it needed long range air defence. It comes to what would be cut to pay for it? Half the typhoon fleet, 25,000 less soldiers and kit? It’s tough choices

Marked
Marked
3 months ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

The UK could easily lose that number in a serious conflict due to lack of air defence. And its not like we have numbers where we can afford losses.

Is it a question of can we afford it or a question of can we afford not to make funds available for it? I know which way slimy Westminster cretins swing on that question…

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
3 months ago
Reply to  Ryan Brewis

Some have patriot, irst, Samp-T, Nasams etc. as a group nato has good amount of systems. If nato had to deploy to a country it could put up some good air defence. Then with all the aircraft and modern air missiles it should be quite effective. No system can be 100% effective, 100% of the time unfortunately. As we will probably see in the Red Sea soon being defensive for a long time against constant threats will fail at some point. Air defence has to be effective 100% of the time where as the attacker only needs 1 threat to… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
3 months ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

And that is the real point. If Russia triggers Article 5 then they face all of the NATO kit combined and will be destroyed in a conventional war in short order. TBH the NATO kit that is proximate to the theatre would probably be enough. T45 and Horizon would be used to box them in on the sea borders. I think most of the Russian AF would be destroyed on the ground anyway and what little did venture up would be taken out fast by NATO AF’s with their much superior F35 / Typhoon / Grippen combos and they would… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 months ago

Hope the UK is doing the same across the board. I think we’re all getting sick of what the Russian’s are doing to the Ukrainian people! They need to be “shoved” or “shovelled” out of Ukraine by any means possible. I think there needs to be stronger language and conviction used in the UN so they know we (that is most of the world) know what’s going on and are not fooled. Strength and victory to Ukraine 🇺🇦.

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
3 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The unfortunate realisation is that every Russian solider in Ukraine will need to be killed or captured. Russian commanders aren’t allowing troops to retreat. Unless some change comes in Russian leadership/policy or a revolt in the forces.
Hopefully Ukraine can go on the defensive for next year and the west can get its collective fingers out there bums and get kit made and delivered. Left overs is not enough. Over match is needed to eradicate that many people unfortunately.
Defend, Preserve, train and prepare

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 months ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

If Russian’s kill Russian’s that’s awful but saves Ukraine doing it! Hope you mean Ukraine going more on the offensive, if, when and where it can, and with whatever it has to hand. Yes, hope the West keeps up backing Ukraine, as do we all really want Putin to get away with this? A defeat for him and the Russian forces might even bring some necessary and beneficial change for Russia and its people.

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
3 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

A plan for Ukraine for 2025 offensive would be useful and nations can get what is needed ready. Ukraine still needs a lot just to defend through 2024. If opportunity arises Ukraine should seize it but there’s no point rushing into it when not ready. If Russia wants to continue pushing forward it will take more losses than defenders. If not the conflict goes frozen until one side is ready. A bunch of technical problems need to be solved. Breaching large minefields,using technology to accomplish heavy casualties on the enemy without taking large losses in the process. Building up large… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
3 months ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

Unfortunately, forced to largely agree w/ your assessment. It is going to require a significant period of time to truly train UKR troops in combined arms maneuver warfare via dedicated training w/in NATO countries. The full training course, not some hybrid abbreviated version. This is after properly resourcing UKR w/ F-16s, AD batteries, MBTs, artillery, IFVs, mine clearance vehicles and equipment, ammunition stocks, ad infinitum. At this point, given the amount of time the Orcs have been granted to develop defensive lines, believe this should be treated as the equivalent of breaching the ‘Western Wall’ in Operation Overlord. Not entirely… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 months ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

Yes, agree, you can’t fast forward the offensive but it does need to reinforced with deep logistics, ammunitions and personnel everyday. It must be hell in Ukraine. We’re so bloody lucky, I feel it everytime I’m drinking my ☕ in peace and in one piece! Good on the UK , US, our Allies and others standing up for Ukraine. The West has the will to fight to defend human freedoms and a nations integrity and for greater democracy. I think we’re definitely on the right side of the fence here however imperfect we may be.

Last edited 3 months ago by Quentin D63
Frank62
Frank62
3 months ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Seems like HMG since the end of the cold war has been steadily reducing UK defence forces to a point where we could offer little resistance to any aggressor apart from the nuclear deterrent. Maybe that’s what all the Russian & Chinese investment & donations has bought.
HMG loves to talk the talk while cutting the throats of most services the UK needs, among them defence.

Marked
Marked
3 months ago
Reply to  Frank62

All true, but I’d replace that most in the last line with the word all.

Mark
Mark
3 months ago

Its hung up waiting for approval but its not just short ranged systems the NSPA is ordering, with potentially up to 1000 Patriot missiles for members being announced today as well. Hopefully the link will be posted, or you can search for it.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
3 months ago
Reply to  Mark

Question, has the UK ever enquired about getting Patriot for its GBAD? And I read somewhere that it’s been launched from MK41s too, kind of useful fallback to the more expensive Standard missiles.

Paul.P
Paul.P
3 months ago

Good news; but isn’t the urgent problem that, should HMS Lancaster be deployed in the Red Sea, she would struggle if attacked by a Houthi ballistic missile?

John Hartley
John Hartley
3 months ago

I see BAE is to restart M777 howitzer production. At first for spare parts needed by Ukraine, but after that, all new guns.

Tom
Tom
2 months ago

Just asking… as NATO does not have a standing Army/Navy/Airforce, who would these missiles be bought for?