The SAMP/T New Generation long-range air and missile defence system has completed two successful live firing trials in France and Italy.
Eurosam said the firings took place on 3 December at the PISQ test range in Sardinia using the Italian variant of the system, and on 15 December at the DGA Essais de Missiles range in Biscarrosse with the French configuration. Both tests involved the full SAMP/T NG system architecture, including the engagement module, sensor radar and launchers operating as an integrated system.
The trials followed earlier ASTER B1NT missile firings in October 2024 and July 2025, which confirmed the system’s extended-range capability. The latest tests were intended to demonstrate the system’s ability to intercept complex aerial and missile threats, including targets presenting challenges in range, speed, manoeuvrability and low observability.
SAMP/T NG is being developed under the long-standing FSAF-PAAMS air defence cooperation framework, managed by the Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation on behalf of France, Italy and the United Kingdom. The programme forms a central part of European efforts to strengthen long-range surface-based air and missile defence.
The system has already been ordered by France and Italy to equip the French Air and Space Force, the Italian Army and the Italian Air Force. Initial deliveries are scheduled for early 2026, when the first systems will enter operational evaluation.
Interest in SAMP/T NG has also widened beyond the original partner nations. In September 2025, Denmark selected the French variant of the system as the basis for its future long-range surface-based air and missile defence capability.
Would it be worth the UK getting involved in this?
Sorry didnt read the article properly (had a few off to the Cardiff v Chelsea game) the UK is part of it apparently, unless i misred again.
I think we are only involved from an aster missile perspective as they are used in the t45, rather than any interest in investing in it for ground based defence purposes.
Would be worth a UK purchase.
Deploy them to Cyprus, Lossiemouth and the northern radar sites as a minimum.
First I hear of this UK participation. The article mentions UK participation, but I don’t know what that entails. Confusing statement because SAMP/T and Aster are designed/made by joint venture Eurosam (MBDA France, MBDA Italy and Thales France) which the UK is not part of, furthermore UK does not even operate any SAMP/T systems. On top of that, the UK seems to be moving away from Aster since it has developped a competing product to Aster 15 called CAMM and is using Mk41 VLS for its future frigates, Type 26 and Type 31, instead of Sylver VLS.
CAMM is not really an alternative to ASTER, more an alternative to MICA/IRIS-T missile.
.
ASTER 15 is a much more potent/deadly missile than CAMM.
However for the same space, and similar price, you can have 4 CAMM or CAMM-ER for 1 Aster 15, and that’s definitely a better combination.
Depend a lot.
Both system have pros and cons.
THey are complementary (of course I think it’s a bit better to dual pack it with ASTER 30 than 15).
Aster is single pack. Not many dual packs out there, CAMM-MR will be a dual pack
Nah, the UK is still invested in the Aster. They’re trending towards integrating it into the Mk41, alongside the less capable CAMM to fill other roles.
The current Sylver VLS is quite limited, but the A70-NG is realistically where the UK should have gone. Unfortunately, it wasn’t ready in time.
Well HiLo mix is needed.
Nosing can afford £2m earshots against £200k systems…that is the CAMM niche.
We also need an even cheaper variant @ £20k.
You cannot get a missile for 20k
Well you can in volume production if you use a dynamic fill synthesis….and simple guidance….never mind…
Well there’s stuff like martlet but it’s too simplistic for dynamic launching like VLS, which affects how many can be carried
Why should we go for A70 NG, when Mk41 can in theory take any weapon
Well, in theory, A70 NG should also be able to take any weapon. At the same time, there’d be no issue getting the Aster integrated.
Hopefully they improve the footprint for it though
Yeah, hopefully. Space efficiency isn’t currently Sylver’s strong suit
Our participation is currently to use the Aster 30 Block 1/NT missile as part of the Sea Viper system (i.e. for T45 and T83), we’re not directly looking at SAMP/T as far as I’m aware.
But we need it for deployed forces as a larger bubble over the top of CAMM, unless CAMM-MR and -LR get developed quickly and can demonstrate a capability against at least SRBMs.
Talk about a bleedin’ obvious pick, the UK should buy some for it’s own GBAD! If it’s good enough for Framce, Italy, Denmark and been successful in Ukraine it should be good enough for the UK. And if same missile stocks as the Navy then can be part of the same pool. Can compliment CAMM and whatever else.
Given that it appears to work I presume there is no danger of our buying it anytime soon.?
Be good if SAMP/T could even utilise CAMM /CAMM-MR as well in a mixed battery if it was ever required. Not sure how different the Viper system is to the land system but if CAMMvl and Aster can be done on the T45s then it should be doable on land too.
And with the UK’s relationship Norway would a purchase of NASAM’s be worth considering especially if lots of stocks of mixed missiles lying around?
I doubt it’d be too hard- I believe CAMM is pretty agnostic in terms of radar interface. You’d probably need different launcher vehicles for CAMM and Asters, but the command and control pieces, plus the radar should be able to be the same.
CAMM comes in three versions and I would have thought the MR version fits what we need. radar systems should be able to run both.
The Aster according to MBDA has had a Mk41 test fit. But I believe it was completely model based, rather than a physical test fit. Nobody so far has stumped up the cash for a full integration. If the RN wants to stay with Aster rather going down the US path, then it will have to pay for the integration costs, especially when it comes to the T83. The T26 and T31 should be slightly easier, as I reckon they will only have variants of CAMM. Due to the ease of quad or dual packaging CAMM.
That or the T83 has mk41 and Sylver VLS. Is there any barrier to doing so?
Well Slyver is far less compact than Mk41 for one thing, and last time we tried 2 expensive vls one got cancelled
Could the T83 then have a Slyver/mk41 mix? Read recently somewhere that the French Naval Group are developing a vls silo for CAMM as part of their Frigate bid for Sweden. Like to see the UK manufacturer of the 6 CAMM silo develop this maybe into a 8, 9 or 12 silo for the same space footprint.
If we stick 3 different vls on it 1 or more of those is going to get cancelled
It makes very little sense to have multiple types of VLS, when one system can cover all types of weapons likely to be used. By having multiple types of VLS you incur much higher training, support and maintenance costs over the lifetime of their installation. They also dictate your weapons loadout. As some VLS systems for example Sylver, are not integrated with US weapons, thereby limiting your choice on what is housed or can be used. Integrating your weapons into one VLS does have a higher upfront integration cost for integrating weapons. But over the lifetime of the VLS, this should work out cheaper, due to the lower training, support and maintenance costs.
I do have a bit of an issue with how the T26 is fitted out with its VLS. In front of the bridge its getting the strike length version of the Mk41 with 24 cells. Then in front of that its getting a CAMM farm, made up with 4 x 6 VLS modules to house 24 CAMMs. There is an additional 24 CAMM cells in 4 x 6 modules on top of the mission bay. Giving the ship a total of 48 CAMM. The question I have is, how deep are the CAMM cells? Are they standard length and that’s it or are they currently standard length but have space underneath them to allow for the longer CAMM-ER cannister? However, if the forward CAMM modules were replaced with an additional 8 strike length Mk41 giving a total of 32 cells, then these could also house CAMM in a quad pack arrangement, plus if wanted allow for an increase of 8 additional CAMM, giving a total of 32 forward (making a total of 56 CAMM). Additionally, as the additional Mk41 are strike length, they can easily house a quad pack of CAMM-ER, but also a twin pack of CAMM-MR.
The CAMM farm above the mission bay, being the specific CAMM modules I sort of get, as if they are replaced with Mk41, even the shorter tactical length version, is likely to penetrate too far into the mission bay. But could the CAMM farm be heightened, so that it could accommodate the CAMM-ER variant (which is 1m longer)? Or will this be too much additional top weight?
But if the T26s do get the upgraded BAe radar, then to maximize the ship’s potential. The ship should house more than just local area defence missiles such as the standard CAMM. The latest version of Artisan Type 997 will allow the ship to use the CAMM-ER variant that has a range around 50km. But the combination is not really suited for the anti-ship ballistic missile threat. A better radar is needed, which BAe’s Next Generation Radar (NGR) should provide. Then if married to the CAMM-MR should provide a better ballistic missile defence.
the front had to be redesigned on the australian version to fit 32 vls, too late to do that on ours.
Isn’t the (1+3) 4 mk41 front layout what the Canadian’s T26s are going with? The RAN T26 i think has 4 in a row on the Hunter class but this type is a bit wider than the RN T26.
Isn’t ExLS an option for all CAMM types for RN? Hasn’t it been specifically designed for it?
The 6 vls design looks like it could potentially take another 2-3 CAMM for the same footprint if they made it more a milk crate configuration. It will obviously add nore weight. They’re are they putting square missile cannisters into round cannister holdings which must be wasting space?
Could these 6 vls be made reloadable as a “boxed set” and even a palletised/containerised version for fixing on deck and truck/rail like GraveHawk?
Serious question: can anyone enlighten me as to whether there is any serious thinking/intent to equip the UK with a meaningful layered GBAD system?
I ask as we are now nearly 4 years into the invasion of Ukraine, and it would be good to know that lessons are being learned.
Yes, ongoing 10 year program to develop a layered GBAD system. Sky Sabre is one part of it. Other parts are being developed, along with the system to integrate it. Hopefully the long anticipated equipment plan will shed more light.
You got to wonder why its taking the UK 10 years when France and Itsly seem to be running with this already? Time is a luxury and they should really be more GBAD assets in the field already. UK bases, ports, key infrastructure don’t seem to have anything deployed besides Starstreak, LMM and CAMM for the Army.
Search for Land Ground Based Air Defence program.
These systems might be effective, who knows? Their cost though is very high £500 million for a battery of SAMPT/ NG each battery can provide area air defence for a city approximately. So the UK would likely need to invest at least £6 billion for 12 batteries to cover key sites around the UK.
Lossiemouth, Clyde, Portsmouth, Brize Norton, London, Bristol, Lakenheath, Rosyth, Plymouth, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool or Leeds. The locations are irrelevant, the facts are we would need to spend at least £6 billion for a rudimentary interceptor and GBAD network able to engage rogue states, cruise and the odd ballistic missile.
My basic question is why are France, Italy and even Denmark doing it and not the UK? The first two are comparable economies, so how can they afford it? SAMP/T could be made to operate with CAMM/CAMM-MR and both missiles can share a pool with the RN. They want to spend millions on the loading up T91s, many of us here think land based defences need some love and attention first. There also needs to be an increase in deployable SHORAD.