Saab has received the first order from prime contractor Thales, acting as System Integrator of the end to end solution, for the Multi-Shot Mine Neutralisation System (MuMNS).

The order value is approximately £26.3m and deliveries of the first systems will take place in 2022.

The order received from Thales is part of the Franco-British Maritime Mine Counter Measures (MMCM) programme, where Saab will deliver state-of-the-art mine identification and disposal systems operated from unmanned surface vessels. These will serve with the Royal Navy and French Navy.

“We are proud to announce our first customers of the MuMNS. It’s a great success to deliver capabilities that enable these navies to perform safer and more efficient Mine Countermeasures operations, since the operator can neutralise multiple sea mines from a safe distance,” says Görgen Johansson, head of Saab’s business area Dynamics.

Saab say that MuMNS delivers a new generation of mine identification and disposal in a powerful, modular system based on proven unmanned Saab technology and Mine Countermeasures solutions.

“This means unparalleled operational capability with greater flexibility that significantly improves operational tempo, and reduces the cost of Mine Countermeasures operations and risk to personnel.”

3.3 3 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I’m starting to think the UK should take a default position that if it needs a new capability it will develop it itself in collaboration with one or more partner nations and only opt for US equipment or sole development if no one steps forward. I tend to think that a 80-90% capability with the industrial strength to back it up is better than a 90-100% capability which we are dependent on others for.


Hi Nathan,

I tend to agree in principle, however, any move towards this position would need to be phased and to be honest would realistically only be applied to a portion of the complete range of capabilities we require simply on the basis of cost.

By the way I read on that the UK is seeking observer status on the Franco German ‘Eurotank’ project suggesting we are getting out of the MBT development business.

Cheers CR


The suggestion is they might opt for a variant of the final design though they are stressing they arent joining development. Delivery is something like 2040 so its a long ways off yet, they are still only at concept development and design stage. They made a prototype for testing taking a french two man turret and sticking it on a german Leopard which saved 6 tonnes. The project is shaping up to be as pan european as the Eurofighter.


I think we are already out of that business, any remaining interest owned by Bae is and will inevitably be increasingly tied to whatever Rheinmetall do and eventually sold to. Im sure therefore the observer basis reflects that reality and is in preparation for an eventual choice between a UK orientated version of the eurotank built here by that company (most like) or whatever the US will produce out of their programme produced by a US subsidiary here (hopefully) or just possibly by the time a decision is actually made rejection of the whole concept of a MBT altogether (or… Read more »


I’d agree, I see a place for an MBT in our ORBAT, but I don’t see how we can doemstically start/restart all the military industries that we’d need- although I think CR was thinking that a few of these could be collaborations like the mine hunter. I’d rather we went European or American on the MBT and dropped JLTV for Foxhound as our new protected vehicle for instance; from the perspective that they’ll be much more exportable, have a far larger manufacturing volume and longer manufacturing life, and will be more likely to have components with easy crossover to other… Read more »

Andy A

Pity USA seem so protectionist, we could have done them trade for some frigates for MBT, or meteor missle, we don’t seem to help our defence industry, it’s like government is embarrassed by it while the cousins are proud and push theres

Andy A

Spear3 even for low cost, low casualty strike option


They don’t just seem it, they are. It is rare that a foreign design gets approval- particularly complex weapons and systems. But even when they do, they have to be built by a US subsidiary. To be fair, the US defence industry makes very good products, so there’s not always a need to go elsewhere. There is also a security benefit from knowing you don’t have to rely on anyone else for defence supplies. But it is equally about protecting US industrial output and jobs- what they like to call pork barrel politics I believe. The government likely hasn’t bothered… Read more »

Sceptical Richard

I really like the new Dutch-Belgian MCMV concept. I really think it represents the way forward.