Raytheon has been awarded a $478 million contract by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) to supply additional GEM-T missiles to Germany, according to a press release.
The contract is intended to replenish Germany’s inventory of Patriot missiles following donations made to Ukraine as part of ongoing support efforts.
The deal, which is being financed with the help of Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway, reflects a coordinated European approach to strengthening missile defence capabilities. These nations have agreed to contribute to the procurement, demonstrating their collective commitment to supporting Ukraine and enhancing NATO’s defensive posture.
Tom Laliberty, president of Land and Air Defense Systems at Raytheon, noted the advantages of this multinational procurement effort.
“Our customers are already realizing the benefits of bundled, multi-national procurement of Patriot missiles through NSPA, including the economies that offer greater affordability and the pre-negotiated contracting framework that shortens the acquisition timeline,” he said.
Laliberty highlighted that this approach not only bolsters missile inventories for European partners but also enhances cooperation, interoperability, and contributions to NATO’s essential missions.
NSPA General Manager Stacy A. Cummings added, “This contract demonstrates once again that NSPA, as NATO’s lead organisation for multinational acquisition, support and sustainment, delivers effective and cost-efficient multinational solutions to nations, while reinforcing European industrial capacities.”
She also spoke of how, through close cooperation between allies and industry, customer nations have achieved economies of scale, reduced logistics footprints, and secured capable solutions under a proven legal framework.
The GEM-T missile is designed to intercept tactical ballistic missiles and other airborne threats. The Patriot system, relied upon by eight European nations and Ukraine, remains a cornerstone of air defence across 19 countries, providing protection against cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, enemy drones, and aircraft.
And what about the UK? Is this an oversight or does the UK have a secret system that precludes the need for missile defence. I believe it’s time to get smart and do as others do.
Yes, especially if CAMM MR doesn’t eventuate…a Patriot UK edition might be a gap filler. Sensible, doable, transportable. Why not UK USA co-develop a new version of adapt the Meteor to fit?
From what little is known how does the CAMM MR stack up against GEM-T in respect of range and altitude?
Not sure meteor is the solution as its meant to be air launched, ground launched it would have significantly less range.
Not sure if there’s any range data out on the CAMM MR out yet? There may be a need to get creative like the NASAMs launcher firing AMRAAMs and AIM9Xs. Or an Iron Dome type CAMM trailer pad launcher. I believe the Patriot has even been fired from a mk41 vls. Some good “inside the [launcher] box” thinking already.
CAMM-MR does not exist.
There is no UK requirement.
CAMM-MR along with the ER version have been mentioned in enhancing the Sky Sabre’s capabilities. Both the Italian and Polish MoD’s have mentioned the use of these missiles by the UK.
There have been at least another two key indicators. The first is by a Lt Colonel in the Royal Artillery (RA), who stated they would be enhancing its capabilities, stating the ER version will fit the truck’s launcher without any modifications. The second is that DE&S announced they are looking for a replacement/complimentary radar for the Sky Sabre’s Giraffe, which has a much longer range.
So I guess we must wait and see if the RA dies get these or not. I think the lessons from Ukraine’s war with Russia. Is that when facing a peer opponent, your air defence system must be able to counter anything they throw at you from ballistic missiles down to the cheap drone. Giving the Army the ER and/or MR versions of CAMM gives them a better chance of intercept the higher end threats.
Thanks for replying…
There is a suggestion that the US Navy could replace their SM2 with the Patriot PAC3.
CAMM-MR according to MBDA’s blurb is classed as a 100km ranged weapon. They have not released anything about engagement heights. However when you consider Aster 30 has a published range of 120km and an engagement height of 20km. CAMM-MR won’t be too far off 20km.
The Patriot PAC 3, has a similar published range of 120km to Aster 30, and its engagement height is 36km. Patriot having a longer engagement height is correct, as it’s a longer missile than Aster, so it can hold more propellant. Aster has the mid-body strakes which are used to generate lift, thereby aiding range. Patriot is a very aerodynamically clean missile will smallish tail fins, much like the original CAMM.
CAMM-MR may be longer still than CAMM-ER. The models that have been released, show it as being much fatter. Plus it now has mid-body strakes for generating extra lift. I have a feeling it will approximately match Aster 30 Block 0 in performance for height and range.
Meteor would be an extremely effective surface launched missile, but only if it used an additional 1st stage booster! The solid rocket motor used as the current 1st stage, only has enough oomph to get to supersonic speeds when added to the parent aircraft’s launch speed.
Meteor’s main advantage in air to air engagements is its cruise speed. Being faster and more constant over a distance. Whereas, something like AMRAAM which even with a dual pulse motor is all or nothing. Where it will soon burn out its propellant and then glide to its target. The dual pulse works much like a two stage rocket. Where the first stage accelerates it to its terminal velocity. Then burns out. The missile will glide to its target, whilst slowing down. When it slows down to About Mach 2.5, it initiates the second stage, reaccelerating the missile to the target.
At the moment there isn’t a proper controllable or throttleable way of metering a solid rocket motor. It’s all or nothing. Though there is some current research on electrically operated propellant. Which in tests has shown it can be used to turn the rocket motor on or off. The rate of burn is still an aspiration. Meteor will still reach its target with more energy and with a higher terminal speed.
Meteor however, must be supersonic before it initiates its “ramjet”, or more correctly its throttleable ducted rocket (preferably more than Mach 1.5, as its a more stable airflow). If it used for example Aster’s 15’s 1st stage booster. The missile would be traveling at well over Mach 3, before the ramjet was ignited. Give it Aster 30’s it would be faster still.
The Meteor boasted by Aster 30’s 1st stage, would have significantly further range than Aster 30. Simply because the missile (final stage) holds more propellant. It would be hitting speeds around Mach 5. Which would need a material redesign. As some materials would need replacing or beefing up to resist the heat from air friction and hypersonic shock waves. The main limiting factor though are the air intakes. As they’re not designed for these speeds. Though with the correct intake design a ramjet can reach Mach 6 to 6.5.
Being in essence a three stage rocket, ie external booster 1st stage, solid rocket in exhaust 2nd stage and ramjet as the 3rd stage. A surface launched Meteor could significantly out reach for range and height the new Patriot, that will be using the dual pulse motor.
Good read Davey. Hope someone at MBDA is thinking the same regarding developing the Meteor as you’ve described. Do you reckon the T83 will have MK41s and Sylvers or just the former or any other VLS? Will the UK’s upgraded/later Asters be able to fire from MK41s?
According to MBDA’s blurb, Aster can be fired from the Mk41 VLS. However, as far as I know it has never done a live fire trial. I believe only a theoretical study has been carried out.
The strike length Mk41 is about 70cm longer than the Sylver A70 strike length VLS. So technically the Mk41 can hold slightly longer missiles. Which may be important when propellant volume is the overriding requirement.
I have a feeling the RN will go for an all Mk41 fit on the T83. It makes more economical sense, as there’s significantly more systems integrated with the Mk41 than with Sylver. Plus you don’t have to maintain two separate systems, which would require two separate logistical and training requirements.
If MBDA want to keep selling Aster to the RN, they will have make sure it works 100% from a Mk41, or the Navy will shop elsewhere! For instance MBDA have only now started the concept phase for a SM6 equivalent. Which puts them about 20 years behind before it can be fully fielded. SM6 would give the Navy a significant capability that it currently does not have off the shelf now, but it can only be fired from a strike length Mk41. Similarly there is currently only one exoatmospheric missile available to Western Navies, which is the SM3. Again it will require the strike length Mk41 VLS. Which the Navy will have to bear in mind in case of future requirements.
The US has several missile defense systems. Why in the world should it expend resources to develop a British missile system to defend the UK? The defense of the UK’s homeland is the UK’s responsibility, not the US’s.
What I meant was the UK can adopt a US system then tailor it to the UK’s requirements but I’m not sure how doable that is in the real world. Yes, agree, the UK should be capable of looking after its own homeland.
Think that should be the priority of this government but it’s that puzzling word Defence again 🙄
See earlier comment we cannot afford Integrated Air and Missile Defence.
Can we afford not to have it mate 🤔 🇬🇧
Of course the UK can. Just because some BA says £25bn, get another quote or several quotes, or see what you can get for a fixed quote. Don’t just shut the “skylight” and say too hard, too expensive! Find an affordable solution. There’ll be stuff going on in the background from those in the know.
The UK has nothing like this.
A deliberate decision to lose or gap capability, taken probably 20 years ago.
The UK has no Integrated Air and Missile Defence capability.
A very limited number of Sky Sabre at a push, a couple of T45s maybe (they cannot get far inland) and Typhoon.
Defence Analysis suggests £25Bn required over 10 years to rectify, it is not in the equipment budget hence will not happen.
Europe is at least working together.
Considering rockets are the weapon of choice for some terror groups how can the UK Government believe in not protecting its people from even a primitive rocket system? Admittedly, the current rockets are range challenged but these can be fired from mobile platforms in the guise of delivery trucks driven into the country. The more serious threat might be from a major power or organisation that considers a limited strike against our vital assets. We witness endless pictures of Israel’s successful counter systems yet believe these actions to be limited to the Middle East when conceptually it could be anywhere.
It was longer than that even, Bloodhound was OOS probably 1990 ish, no successor was considered.
There was but it got cancelled. Sea Dart 2 GWS31 was a program that BAe had designed as an enhanced Sea Dart. Incorporating larger control surfaces, a new vectoring thrust solid rocket booster, new fuzing and more fuel. Along with mid-course guidance updates. It would have used the Type909M CW radar. That would allow multiple target tracking. They even looked at vertical launch. Included was a new Type1030 radar, which featured two antennas placed back to back, similar to today’s Sampson (though a traditional mechanically scanned pulse-Doppler radar not PESA or AESA). Though I don’t think the 1030 was going to be used on anything below the Batch 3 Type 42s. It was known as the Advanced Sea Dart and got cancelled in the 1982 Defence Review. However part of the project was to develop a land based version to replace Bloodhound.
Ummm…somehow managed to lose the bubble on this matter, and it does not quite compute. Fully understand economies of scale w/ joint purchases, but unable to discern the reasoning behind the Dutch, who have their own Patriots, partially underwriting a German purchase. In a similar vein, if for no other reason than geography, shouldn’t the Norwegians logically cooperate w/ the Swedes, who have established their own capability? The Danes, contiguous to Germany and w/out own capability, merit a pass. Sorry, nonplussed. Please school a cynical American re this astonishingly altruistic act. Thanks in advance. 🤔😳
It’s all part of a deal to establish a Patriot production line in Europe. I believe it’s a joint venture with MBDA and Raytheon and contributing nations will be expecting their own companies to be awarded component contracts.
No altruism involved.
Huh. 🤔 Makes more sense than my interpretation. 👍
Germany donated stocks to UKR and the other countries are cooperating to replenish them?
Another interpretation of the vague text??
The bit that is known is the setting up of a European line for making them in volume.
That’s MBDA (Germany) only.
Looks like to me we may of been better off not bothering with Sky Sabre and just gone of the shelf with Patriot in the first place. Not taking anything away from our system we are we’re we are , so for now increase sky sabre numbers 🤔 but has we all know troop numbers are low and no point in having systems without manpower. Same old word problems not solved till more money in Defence. 😟 🇬🇧
Unfortunately 480 million only buys approx 125-150 patriot missiles it’s enough to provide some anti ballistic cover for key sites and cities but not enough to guarantee defence.
NATO nations need to go deeper with their stockpiles but this is a positive move.
Meanwhile UK has little to no GBAD. Something the strategic defence review needs to urgently address.
Couldn’t agree more 👍
Why can’t they UK just buy more Aster and the transportable Sampt/T system as an interim and share the inventory? Like the French and Italian’s must be doing and as we all know they both have Asters on their carriers too.