Saab has announced a new contract from the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) for its Mobile Short Range Air Defence (MSHORAD) solution.

The contract, spanning the period from 2024 to 2026, is valued at approximately SEK 300 million, and the order was booked by Saab in the fourth quarter of 2023.

The FMV, in collaboration with the Swedish Armed Forces, intends to utilise the acquired MSHORAD solution in two configurations, both integrated on the BvS10 armoured vehicle. This move is aimed at further refining Sweden’s mobile air defence requirements.

Görgen Johansson, head of Saab’s business area Dynamics, said, “We are proud that our Swedish customer has chosen to use Saab’s mobile short range air defence solution for this purpose. Our advanced solution is truly mobile, providing crucial protection for forces on the battlefield.”

Saab’s MSHORAD is characterised as a vehicle-integrated solution designed to rapidly and efficiently identify, counter, and neutralise various air threats, including UAVs and armoured helicopters. The system incorporates a mobile radar unit based on the Giraffe 1X radar and a mobile firing unit based on the RBS 70 NG. These components are interconnected through Saab’s ground-based air defence command and control solution, GBAD C2, ensuring a comprehensive air defence coverage.

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

54 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago

Good on the Swedes and hopefully the UK does the same or similar with LMM, Martlet, Starstreak and ASRAAM.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Starstreak already has the vertical three piece launcher but I’m not sure if it’s linked any radar unir?

Joe16
Joe16
16 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I wonder if a UGV might be a good solution for a mounted radar? Russian Pantsir systems come all-in-one, but seem to get pasted pretty regularly- I wonder if that’s because the radar emissions give them away. Autonomous following of manned vehicles and terrain crossing has been proven for unmanned trucks in a convoy set up, I wonder if something similar for a wheeled vehicle mounting at least the transmission portion of the radar for a SHORAD system might give better survivability. The beauty of Stormer is that it doesn’t have to emit anything to target and kill the enemy.… Read more »

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

It is bonkers that we have a wonderful range of domestically produced missiles……but we don’t deploy them on vehicle mounts….

Hermes
Hermes
17 days ago

In France, we have all the solutions on vehicles, but we haven’t ordered them.
It’s no better…

France, UK and Germany could have such a fine army with what is already available but not ordered.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
16 days ago
Reply to  Hermes

At least we have developed them and proved they work to sell to others……

Tullzter
Tullzter
16 days ago
Reply to  Hermes

France has the Crotale NG, a pretty efficient short range air defense system

Hermes
Hermes
16 days ago
Reply to  Tullzter

Being replaced by VL MICA

Jon
Jon
16 days ago

Sky Sabre may be less mobile, requiring larger vehicles, but it carries more missiles, has a considerably longer range radar, and nevertheless is mobile! Giraffe 1X on the Saab MSHORAD is nominally rated at 75km, so one would have thought it would be enough, but it’s mounted maybe 3m from the ground. I suppose you’d have to use terrain. I think there are pros and cons.

The biggest problem with Sky Sabre is not buying enough of them. Perhaps the price point is what really gives Saab’s MSHORAD the edge.

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
16 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Sky Sabre’s biggest issue was that as soon as it started IOC army stated they wanted something longer range.

The usual army Gucci problem.

Perfection getting in the way of good.

Which is why the collaboration with Poland on the MR version is probably army driven. I can see RN being interested too as it will be more customer effective and sovereign.

Jon
Jon
16 days ago

If the Army need (want) longer range there’s ER, almost plug and play. We have to actually buy and field some batteries in order to get them sold into other countries to bring the unit price down. The thing is, the radar is Swedish, the control unit Israeli, only the effectors are sovereign UK. Who did the integration? Who is in charge of sales? I don’t know if there is a commercial company that put the elements together. If it’s MOD on behalf of the Army, they aren’t going to be aggressively pursuing market share. I agree Army requirements need… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
16 days ago
Reply to  Jon

The functional integration must have been made by Elbit- Israel because it is the brain in Sky Sabre.

Coll
Coll
16 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Check out Giraffe 1X on a Supacat Jackal. There are some videos on youtube.

Andrew D
Andrew D
16 days ago
Reply to  Jon

That’s right not enough sky sabre to Defend the UK for sure. 👍

Levi Goldsteinberg
Levi Goldsteinberg
16 days ago

What about Stormer HVM?

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
16 days ago

Nor. Do we.promote the defence of our.population centres. Many nations have systems i.n place to protect the major defence targets which are missile networks

Steve
Steve
16 days ago

It’s not all negative. In the event of a peer or near peer war, they could be integrated pretty quickly as demonstrated by Ukraine. The real question is how big are the stocks of these missiles, all fine being able to use for multiple roles but that then spreads the stocks wider if needed.

Last edited 16 days ago by Steve
Louis G
Louis G
17 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

This system is effectively Sweden’s equivalent to Stormer HVM, albeit with a proper radar instead of IRST. ASRAAM is a much larger missile, though CAMM would probably be a better choice for a proper self propelled air defence system. Also, LMM and Martlet are the same thing.

Bob
Bob
16 days ago
Reply to  Louis G

A “proper radar” is not always a good thing. Having the ability to search the sky, with or without an initial radar cue, without revealing your position is a real bonus.

Gunbuster
Gunbuster
16 days ago
Reply to  Bob

And thats where AESA LPI radars say…Hold my beer!

Ian M
Ian M
16 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

I know what AESA is, but what is LPI?
cheers

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
16 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

Low
Probability
Intercept

Ian M
Ian M
16 days ago

👍
Thanks

Jon
Jon
16 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

Low Probability of Intercept are characteristics of radars designed to be hard to spot.

Ian M
Ian M
16 days ago
Reply to  Jon

👍
Thanks

DaveyB
DaveyB
16 days ago
Reply to  Ian M

As others have said LPI – Low Probability of Intercept. This is one of the key advantages of an AESA radar. There are a number of ways AESA can be LPI. One is that the base frequency the transmitter-receiver modules (TRMs) operates on, can be switched to another frequency in milli-seconds (<50msec). But the radar can spread the frequencies it “hops to”, throughout the bandwidth that the TRMs are capable of transmitting. It can then continuously randomize the hops. This makes it really hard for radar surveillance equipment to keep track of. The second method is based on the TRMs… Read more »

Ian M
Ian M
16 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

A nice, detailed explanation that even a nearly retired ex REME electronics tech can understand!👍😎

Bob
Bob
16 days ago
Reply to  Gunbuster

Still not ZPI and AESA are expensive.

IRST offers zero probability of interception and the opportunity to field more launchers. Mix and match.

Jim
Jim
16 days ago
Reply to  Bob

AESA are very expensive, larger ones are hundreds of millions. Im guessing that’s why they are not vehicle mounted at the moment.

Jim
Jim
16 days ago
Reply to  Bob

Yeah switching on a big radar these days on a battlefield inside artillery range is a death sentence.

Laser guided missiles are a better solution for armoured vehicles.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63
16 days ago
Reply to  Louis G

Yes, I was thinking of something lighter than Stormer and wheeled like a Boxer variant or even smaller than that.

Louis G
Louis G
16 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Boxer is a lot heavier than Stormer and probably a bit overkill for a mobile AA platform, but perhaps one of the Supacat wheeled vehicles (Jackal and Coyote) could be suitable?

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
15 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Stormer is only 12.7 tonnes.
Boxer is much bigger, heavier, more expensive and has less speed and mobility.

Jonno
Jonno
15 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

That would be the day. Britain needs to get air defence sorted and fast. Ukraine shows what this is all about. The Army doesn’t inspire me with much confidence in this regard. For instance who actually is responsible for air defence of the UK. Can somebody please tell me? Some 3.7″ would be an improvement on present arrangements.
Its a shambles is my guess, with no one taking responsibility. Neither Army or RAF; perhaps its the Navy?

PKO100
PKO100
10 days ago
Reply to  Jonno

Air Defence of the UK is one of the RAF’s military tasks. For contingent operations, it is a mixture of GBAD, MBAD and ABAD co-ordinated by the designated ABM.

Andrew D
Andrew D
16 days ago

Watch Grant shapes yesterday morning on sky news getting interviewed ,on our Defence budget all smiles has you can imagine ,UK biggest of all European nations and wanting other countries to do more .Honestly 🙄 I wish the presenter asked him about UK air defence 😕 🇬🇧

Iain
Iain
16 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

We will almost certainly find that the interviewers have to submit a question list before the interview is agreed. How else can he get his more intelligent speech writer to give him the answers to try and learn.
I was quite impressed with the one that wrote his if we aren’t prepared we will end up in a war and not a small one speech. They seemed to get it so a solid 8.5. The one who wrote the smaller because we are technologically better one just copied and pasted from 2010. Nil point.

ChariotRider
ChariotRider
16 days ago
Reply to  Iain

Hi Iain, I assume you refer to the speech he gave to Lancaster House. I read the full speech as well and thought the first and last of the speech told it as it is – scary times and he was right to say we are moving from a post war to a prewar period. The middle part (a lot of it frankly) was hog wash as it over played the limited positives and completely ignored the hollowing out of our armed forces and support industrial base. He then had the affront to lecture our European Allies to do more… Read more »

Jon
Jon
16 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

Two thirds of the NATO allies don’t spend 2% of GDP on defence, a commitment all reasserted in Vilnius, so he’s every right to point that out. Only seven did in 2022. In 2023, ten are expected to.

However we are spending less in GDP terms than last year, so him patting himself on the back rankles.

grizzler
grizzler
16 days ago
Reply to  Jon

Others (well most at least) dont have the nuclear deterent included in their ammount.

I would also like to know how many include the pensions etc. as messrs Cameron & Osbourne facilitated.

If we remove those and concentrate on how much is spent on conventional defence it would provide a more accurate comparison.

How do we fair then…

Jon
Jon
16 days ago
Reply to  grizzler

I’d estimate we are down to about 1.68% from 2.07% The numbers are heavily obscured and I have to admit this is a bit finger in the airish. 6% of def budget is operational nuclear, maybe 4% renewal nuclear, and as much as 10% fiddle factor, for pensions, UK security, etc. That put’s us about 19 out of 30 (20 out of 31 after Sweden join). I haven’t crunched any numbers on France, who also would fare badly on this kind of comparison. If you could hunter-killer subs as nuclear, we do worse this year, if you don’t, we do… Read more »

Last edited 16 days ago by Jon
Graham Moore
Graham Moore
15 days ago
Reply to  Jon

I too once estimated that our real defence spend based on capability (output) is about 1.7%.
Very worrying that it is so low in this ‘pre-war’ era.

Iain
Iain
16 days ago
Reply to  ChariotRider

I sadly hadn’t seen the full text otherwise I would be right there with you criticizing the woolly middle bit. More than possible that the overlords in the treasury and at number 10 had the wording ‘amended’ so as not to commit them to anything.
I would also suggest that WW3 probably started in 2014 when nobody did anything about Russia’s annexation of the Crimea. Definitely echoes of early moves by Nazi Germany.

Last edited 16 days ago by Iain
DaveyB
DaveyB
16 days ago

The two systems using the Bvs10 vehicle, have the missiles mounted on the rear unit. The first as shown above uses The RBS70 MANPAD, however, the second uses IRIS-T VL. The version with IRIS-T has 4 missiles on a single axis vertically moving table, that is stored nearly horizontally when travelling. Which means it must come to a stop, then raise the table before firing. So in essence we have a Stormer like capability with the RBS70 and Land Ceptor with IRIS-T. Moving forward, I am hoping following its use in Ukraine, Thales will develop Starstreak further. Russia has adapted… Read more »

Jim
Jim
16 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

We just need bigger genetically modified squaddies carrying 90kG MANPADS

Or maybe it’s time for the Mech suits 😀

DaveyB
DaveyB
16 days ago
Reply to  Jim

When I played tag rugby against some of the Loggies, who were mostly all Fijians. I think I found your answer!

Nigel Collins
Nigel Collins
16 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Try murder ball next time!

Tim
Tim
16 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

DB. How would the Starstreak range be increased? I understand the body falls away after 400m or so at mach 4 and the darts coast to 8km. Are we allowed to know what speed they doing at 8km? And if the body had say twice the fuel wouldn’t that just push them only an extra 400m at this max spead, or would it get up to say mach 6 and allow the darts to coast to 12km? Would that also reduce the minimum engagement range because I don’t think they get steared whilst the body is still attached?

DaveyB
DaveyB
16 days ago
Reply to  Tim

Hi Tim, I don’t work for Thales, but know a few who do. I do however work in the Defence Sector now. In my military past I was trained on and fired Starstreak. Though moved on before Martlet came into service. As it’s in the public domain, Starstreak reaches a terminal speed of around Mach 4. Its primary requirements were to engage fleeting pop-up helicopters lining up to attack. Hence why its speed is so high. But for a MANPAD sized missile, the high speed comes at the cost of range. However, there is a number of ways to improve… Read more »

AlexS
AlexS
16 days ago
Reply to  Tim

The problem with Starstreak is guidance, it makes sense if it goes very fast to hit a pop up helicopter nearby, since time of flight is short, If instead it is modified to increase range the guidance don’t make sense.

Jon
Jon
16 days ago

Off Topic: Article in Warzone.

F-35 To Get Meteor, SPEAR 3 Missiles “By End Of Decade”

Is it just me or isn’t that yet another delay? Extra funding went in in 2021, so what the heck is going on?

AlexS
AlexS
16 days ago
Reply to  Jon

F-35 is really a project failure and a commercial success.

Andy reeves
Andy reeves
16 days ago

The swedes will be a big asset to NATO the expertise of the forces is very good especially when compared to other long standing members such as the Dutch and Belgians.

Graham Moore
Graham Moore
15 days ago
Reply to  Andy reeves

My perception is that their kit is good too.