Thales UK has won a £98.4 million contract to maintain Short-Range Air Defence (SHORAD) capabilities for the British Army and Royal Marines.
The Ministry of Defence say that SHORAD is made up of “High Velocity and Lightweight Multi-role Missile systems that can intercept air threats including fast jets, attack helicopters and unmanned air systems in a matter of seconds”.
Thales UK won the initial contract in 2018, helping to modernise and develop the missile systems as part of the Future Air Defence Availability Project (F-ADAPT).
This latest announcement confirms a five-year extension to the contract, sustaining over one hundred jobs at Thales UK’s Belfast site and within the wider Northern Ireland supply chain.
Northern Ireland Secretary Brandon Lewis was quoted as saying:
“Northern Ireland has a proud history as a world leader in defence engineering and innovation. Today’s announcement shows again the level of confidence in Northern Ireland as a great place to do business.
During these uncertain times, I am delighted that the investment of over £98-million will protect over 100 skilled jobs in Belfast. I would like to congratulate all those involved who have secured this vital investment.”
Defence Minister Jeremy Quin was also quoted as saying:
“This contract ensures the vital air defence capabilities, capable of dealing with a multitude of threats, are maintained and readily available to deploy.
The £98.4-million investment is the second major contract awarded to Northern Ireland’s defence industry in less than three months highlighting Northern Ireland’s important contribution to the delivery of our critical defence capabilities.”
I’m curious what this money actually delivers. Does it purely maintain the existing missile capability or does it include improvements to the optical tracking system, increased range, integration with future vehicles like Boxer and Ajax. Or is it just money to maintain jobs for 5 years.
If LMM was based off this missile I would like to see a lot more modularity in terms of future launchers where the navy and army could switch between the two depending on the threat.
I agree mate, it doesn’t really say anything in my opinion. I’ve got more info from reading the posts from the lads who know these systems very well.
It’s about time Starstreak (HVM) was updated so it can be used against multiple targets simultaneously rather than the current in sequence method.
The twin laser mapping laser used to overlay a grid on a target is nigh on unjammable and is not affected by laser based directed countermeasures. Which compared to other IR sensor based short range air defence (SHORAD) systems is major advantage. However, it could be so much better and still be laser based and be capable of multiple simultaneous engagements, by using LIDAR as the primary tracking sensor.
If a vehicle like Stormer had a four LIDAR sensors place on the main quadrants around the vehicle. Then these LIDARs using optical phased beam steering means their sweep rate and nano mm wavelength will be able to generate a very good 3D picture around the vehicle, but also be very difficult to detect or jam. By having a beam constantly sweeping, not only will the target be illuminated but so will the missile’s position relative to the vehicle and the target, so interception adjustments can be calculated. If each missile had a unique identifier code, then the management system would be able to allocate a missile per threat and guide them to the target, giving constant updates – simples!
Simples!
Daveyb
Someone said that to me when explaining a GWS 25 Engagement from initial detection on 967 to the missile hitting the target.
I’m a Gunbuster…I did stuff that goes bang and whoosh! Anything involving radars and wigglies through fan trunking ain’t simple…and that incudes lasers even though I was “forced” to learn all of that pinkie stuff t as a systems engineer !
Was that the direct path method or the predicted intercept? I unfortunately, am a bit of a geek in that department. In the last 5 years, there have been massive developments in optical solid state phase shifting, basically PESA for laser. There has been recent lab progress on multiple laser emitter digital control beam steering, which be equivalent to AESA in principle. Though the size of the beam is quite small at the moment, as they can’t handle large amounts of power. The biggest user for them is the automotive industry, where they are being used for autonomous vehicles.
There is a bit of info on wiki, but it’s at least 5 years out of date. One of the leaders in the industry are Quanergy Systems. They have the S Series of solid state Lidar, that use phase controlled beam steering and is used in a number of vehicles. They also produce mechanical scanned Lidar. The solid state range is quite low at around 500m. Packaging wise, these are tiny and will fit in the palm of your hand. The CMOS photonic chip that does the phase shifting can be made scalable. Therefore, it could be scaled up to handle more power to give it the additional range, they haven’t published any details of any military applications – yet!
Fascinating stuff
A very thorough and interesting post there mate, top job!!
Does it work in the rain?
Amazingly, better than expected. It is down to the large optical aperture of the sensor, the exposure time (effective shutter speed) and signal processing.
The larger window aperture used for digital Lidar allows light to pass around obscurants (water droplets) on the sensor window. Both human eyes and cameras have long exposure times measured in thousandths of a second. This makes water droplets appear as large streaks in an image and rain denser than it actually is. A Lidar has an ultrafast exposure time, measured in millionths of a second. Rain is effectively frozen in place during a measurement which significantly reduces the streaks across multiple pixels measured by the receiver.
Digital signal processing also helps massively here. This is due to way the Lidar is transmitting and then looking for a specific frequency without Doppler shift. Instead of integrating all the light returning from a direction towards a CMOS sensor pixel like in a camera. A Lidar sensor integrates photons into a series of “measured range gates” (in other words, we create a photon time stream). From these time streams, we filter out everything but the strongest signal return for each pixel in the sensor. This allows us to ignore the signals that occur at other ranges and intensities, like reflections off of raindrops or even a wet sensor window. A camera by contrast, has no ability to distinguish between the rain in the air and a hard object behind it. All the light is integrated into a single value for each pixel, with no concept of multiple signal returns. The Lidar’s signal processing is able to ignore the signal returning from a raindrop and pick out the stronger signal from, for example, a building. A camera, instead of ignoring the signal from a raindrop, combines the signal from the raindrop with the signal returning from a building behind the raindrop to create one combined return. These combined returns appear as distortions. Due to the aperture size and the blazingly fast shutter speed, the Lidar sensor experiences significantly less image distortion than a camera. That said, the Lidar sensor isn’t completely unaffected in wet conditions, as light reflects off shiny objects, posing a challenge for both the camera and the Lidar sensor to distinguish, which is where using a Doppler algorithm would help for moving targets.
This is not to say fog, snow and dust won’t affect the signal return quality of Lidar, as it will. However, compared to the information I had available last year, as I was also a neighsayer, I would have said Lidar would be heavily affected by rain. But I have seen new data that corroborates digital Lidar working in heavy rain with little performance drop off. This process is also completely different to making a Laser weapon functional over greater range in the pouring rain, where it’s the Laser’s spot cross sectional area and intensity that is all important.
Davey, I was about to say the same, you got there before me………..cough! Great stuff mate, good subject matter knowledge.
I watched a RA dude fire a Starstreak on the range in Pembry, FM its quick!
You’ll be giving your position away to every one and anyone with that method. The current method using the ADAD is purely passive and gives the enemy no warning. Given the speed of Starstreak and countermeasures having no effect thats a lot more useful.
No, that’s not entirely true. Yes the ADAD is passive to it can detect targets without them knowing it, but the method used to track the target and steer the missile towards it relies on a pair of active lasers. These draw a large grid pattern over the target. The missile looks back at the launch unit and gets steer commands depending where the missile is in relation to the grid and the vector from the launch unit. Even the manpad unit uses the lasers, so these are active. However, their field of view is very narrow and just encompasses the target. Which is why the operator has to follow the target using the optical tracker.
Modern mechanical scanned Lidar is much like a traditional radar system. In that the sweep rate is dictated by how fast you can move the mirror. A solid state Lidar using optical phased controlled beam steering, is more like a PESA system, where the scan rate/sweep speed is dictated by how fast the phase shifters work. In this instance because it is digitally swept, the scan rate is stupendous, we are talking hundreds of full view sweeps per second. This means the actual time it spends on target will be measured in the microseconds. A laser warning receiver looks for a consistent pattern over a set period of time to validate a laser threat. If the digital Lidar uses the same sweep algorithms as an AESA radar along with pulsing rather than continuous wave, it means the sweep will be relatively random and therefore more difficult to detect.
The key factor though is the response time and speed of the Starstreak missile. It travels at over Mach 4 (1372 m/s) from 1 second after leaving the launcher. Which means the missile will reach a target 5km away in about 3.6 seconds. Therefore if the target actually detects the laser, it will have very little time to do anything about it. Especially when normal countermeasure or a laser dazzler won’t defeat it.
The ADA is still the primary sensor for detecting targets, but the short ranged Lidar allows multiple targets to be engaged. It also means the launch unit is still relatively safe when illuminating a target.
A weapon system that immune to countermeasure? That would be a first in the history of weapons.
Not in the traditional sense. To make sure the missile intercepts the target, the operator must keep it optically tracked and the target needs to be illuminated by the lasers. The missile does not home on to a laser reflection off the target, like how a Paveway follows the reflection off a target from a laser designator. The two lasers paint a grid on to the target which is then used as a reference for the missile’s interception path. The only method that could be used to jam the missile, is to try and dazzle the operators optics, but these have filters on them just for that. So compared to other SHORAD systems, if you’ve been locked on to by a Starstreak operator you can pretty much guarantee an interception.
Facinating stuff. Are we the only people with this? Surely others (eg Russia) have similar?
I’d like to see Starstreak and LMM (same guidance?) in an 8 cell launcher combined eith ADAD and a LIDAR sensor as you describe, integrated onto Ajax/Boxer as a Stormer HVM replacement and with air to ground capability. “Starfire” I’d call it 🙂
A much more useful platform than pure SAM hence worth the expense as it fills the gap of no non-manpad ATGWs.
Neither Russia or China have a comparable system, as they prefer to use infrared guidance. However, there is another MANPAD system that uses laser beam riding and that is SAAB’s RBS70. It differs from Starstreak, in that it only uses one laser to illuminate the target. But like Starstreak it doesn’t rely on the reflection off the target, as the missile has no nose sensor. It uses the relative difference between the operator and the path of the missile to determine the steering correction sensed by a laser sensor in the missile’s tail. Much like Starstreak the operator has to keep the target optically tracked. However, the RBS70 missile has a proximity fuse and a much larger warhead. It travels at less than half the speed of Starstreak.
A Boxer variant of Stormer seems like a no-brainer. However, I would prefer it if the vehicle was paired up with the CTAS40mm as well as a SHORAD system, as this would be useful (cheaper) against smaller UAVs. A combined Martlet and Starstreak mount, I think does make sense. As Martlet can still engage slower flying subsonic aircraft, but can also engage other targets, though I don’t think has the oomph to deal with a MBT?
Yes, I agree such a system would need a cannon for UAV work, not sure 40CTA is really a good choice or whether such a combination could fit on Boxer/Ajax, but yes for foeet commonality.
Interesting we seem largley unique in this capability, especially given IR has always been defeatable I’d assume Russia/China wouldnhave gone down the same route with their AD focus.
As for AT capability, fair point, I dont know Martlet’s capability vs them (I assumed it had some) although I always struggle to imagine tanks being workable after being hit by supersonic explosive projectiles!
Fantastically described there fella, a really in-depth comment that broke down how the system works…….. top job mate!!
Davey,
Funny you should mention that, as I came across this the other day from MBDA:
MBDA LAUNCHES SKY WARDEN C-UAS SYSTEM
The Sky Warden system manages the full C-UAS kill chain from detection to neutralisation and is designed to operate both as an integrated component in a layered air defence architecture, or in a stand-alone configuration. Sky Warden can be vehicle mounted or dismounted.
The modern C-UAS threat is varied, rapidly evolving, and poses a multiplying number of complex scenarios that require defending against. This means there is no single sensor or effector that can meet the modern or future C-UAS requirement. Instead Sky Warden utilises a networked eco-system of constantly evolving sensors and effectors, drawn from MBDA’s wide experience in air defence and effects management, to match the UAS threat.
Being modular, scaleable, and evolvable, Sky Warden is able to effectively and appropriately neutralise all classes of UAV, from small Class 1 micro-UAVs to large tactical UAVs, as well as other traditional air threats.
At its core is a command and control (C2) system that performs effects management – co-ordinating this eco-system of sensors, soft-kill effectors, and hard-kill effectors to defend armed forces units or sensitive sites across a large protection perimeter.
As it names Stevenage , I was wondering if it an update of starsteak
https://i.postimg.cc/6pSQ284R/Team-Sky-Warden-MBDA-1.png
I’ve not seen this. This networking arrangement makes perfect sense, its like cooperative engagement capability, but on land. I’m not sure if a Stormer can be linked to the Sky Sabre system currently? But it would make a lot of sense to be included, as the Giraffe radar has a much longer detection range than the Stormer’s ADAD.
Is the UK going to get some sort of AD system for the future ?