The NATO-Ukraine Council convened on Wednesday (10 January 2024) in response to the recent surge in Russian air strikes against Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure.

The meeting, called following Russia’s escalated use of ballistic missiles sourced from North Korea and drones from Iran, saw NATO allies strongly condemning these actions.

During the NATO-Ukraine Council meeting, NATO allies reaffirmed their commitment to bolstering Ukraine’s air defences. Already, a significant array of air defence systems have been delivered to Ukraine.

In a recent initiative, through NATO, allies are procuring up to 1,000 Patriot air defence missiles to replenish their stockpiles while continuing to enhance Ukraine’s air defences. Germany has contributed Patriot and Skynex air defence systems along with additional missiles for IRIS-T air defences, and the United Kingdom is dispatching around 200 air defence missiles to Ukraine.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stated, “NATO strongly condemns Russian missile and drone attacks on Ukrainian civilians, including with weapons from North Korea and Iran. For a second year in a row, Putin is trying to wear down Ukraine with mass strikes, but he will not succeed. Russia’s campaign of cruelty only strengthens Ukraine’s resolve. As Moscow intensifies its strikes on Ukrainian cities and civilians, NATO Allies are boosting Ukraine’s air defences. We will continue to stand by the brave Ukrainians as they push back against Russia’s war of aggression.”

The meeting, held at the ambassadorial level, was convened at the request of Ukraine and chaired by Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

13 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago

Like to see a naval launcher version of this! Can this ASRAAM also be quadpacked into the mk41? Or, configured to fire from something like an Iron Dome launcher?

Louis G
Louis G
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

CAMM is derived from ASRAAM, but with an active radar seeker instead of IR and probably numerous other changes, it can be quad-packed into mk41 and can be fired from land as part of Sky Sabre/Land Ceptor.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
1 month ago
Reply to  Louis G

Still, a rail launched missile might stop a stray missile hitting a river 2, an obvious return on investment

Louis G
Louis G
1 month ago
Reply to  SailorBoy

It could definitely be useful on a River, I’m reasonably confident their radar can’t do fire control so they can’t use their cannon to intercept missiles, I’d be happy to be proven wrong though.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Louis G

Plus the Bays, Albions, Argus and RFAs.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
1 month ago
Reply to  Louis G

Yes I am aware of that. What I’m asking is that they (possibly) can look at getting the ASRAAM (not just CAMMs) fired from MK41 or rail launched for naval vessels as well. Different launch method but why not have both as an option? Shared inventory with RAF. Just a hypothetical.

Paul T
Paul T
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

The simple answer is why – the system shown above is basically a Lash-up born out of a UOR for Ukraine cobbled together from ex Tornado ASRAAM Launch Rails.Sea Ceptor,like Aster is configured to be stored and Loaded via sealed Canisters,why would you go back to the Rail route of Launching with all the problems that would bring regarding storage of rounds in a Magazine and reloading the Rails,the room taken up with those you might as well just stick with the VLS method.

Louis G
Louis G
1 month ago
Reply to  Paul T

Perhaps the right answer for ships like the Rivers that weren’t built for VLS cells is a system like RIM-116, giving a large number shots of in a small footprint with much better maximum range than Phalanx and better short range performance than basically any VLS launched system.

There were plans to build a Starstreak based CIWS, but I don’t think it ever went anywhere. It’s a shame really, Starstreak is much smaller and lighter than RIM-116 missiles so could have made for a very compact CIWS for small ships.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
1 month ago
Reply to  Louis G

Indeed, certainly the mounted Starsteak system has I believe been shown to be very effective and quite easy to operate and achieve a kill, the shoulder launched version needs a lot more training it has been reported.

SailorBoy
SailorBoy
1 month ago
Reply to  Louis G

RAM is a stupidly expensive solution for close-in defence. Each missile costs more than CAMM, has a shorter range and a longer minimum engagement range. I agree, a developed form of StarStreak or some form of CAMM-Lite would be nice for the Rivers, especially CAMM given its ASuW capability. The argument is that this would make deploying a River an escalation, but that doesn’t seem to be stopping anyone (See Guyana/ Venezuela ). Would CAMM work with a very short and quick-burning booster to make it fit on various decks with more flexibility? It would pop up cold-launch, then fire… Read more »

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
1 month ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Good morning Quentin D63, worth every penny! “The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of the Netherlands of MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) Baseline (B/L) VII Strike Length Launcher Modules (either system or standalone) and related equipment for an estimated cost of $110 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today. The Government of the Netherlands has requested a possible purchase of eight (8) eight-cell MK 41 Vertical Launching Systems (VLS) Baseline (B/L) VII Strike Length Launcher Modules (either system or… Read more »

monkey spanker
monkey spanker
26 days ago
Reply to  Nigel Collins

8×8 cells for $110 million. So. A few million a cell. Add in a few million for the weapon in the cell, a few 100million for the sensors to give you something to fire at, the ship cost and we see how expensive it is to have warships.

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
25 days ago
Reply to  monkey spanker

👍