Switzerland has cemented a deal with the United States for the procurement of Lockheed Martin’s advanced PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement (MSE) missiles.

This agreement positions Switzerland as the fifteenth nation to integrate the PAC-3 system.

Brenda Davidson, Lockheed Martin’s vice president of PAC-3 Programmes, highlighted the collaborative nature of the agreement in a press release:

“We’re honoured to partner with Switzerland to equip the Swiss Armed Forces with the latest in air and missile defence technology to protect and defend Swiss airspace from incoming threats.”

Davidson’s statement underscored the commitment, adding, “Switzerland joins 14 other nations in strengthening their homeland defence against evolving threats.”

This decision is part of Switzerland’s comprehensive Air2030 programme, designed to fortify its Patriot ground-based air defence system. The PAC-3 MSE promises, say Lockheed, to broaden the nation’s defensive horizons by incorporating a dual-pulse solid rocket motor that enhances both the range and altitude of interception capabilities.

The press release delineates the capabilities of the PAC-3 MSE, describing it as “a high-velocity interceptor that defends against incoming threats, including tactical ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, advanced threats and aircraft.”

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. He also previously worked for the NHS. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

32 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chris
Chris
24 days ago

USA and Switzerland?

Supportive Bloke
Supportive Bloke
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris

Ummmm I think auto correct has struck – or maybe it is an article about A30!!

The fact that Switzerland wants the 3 system says a lot about how they see threat level evolving.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
24 days ago

Hmmm…when even the officially neutral Swiss, surrounded by NATO countries, are beginning to be become serious re GBAD, perhaps HMG should revisit the issue…😉

Steve
Steve
24 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Switzerland has always operated on the approach of being heavy armed is the best way to stay neutral and prevent people messing with them. So this is aligned with that. They don’t want to be reliant on anyone else for their defence.

Andrew D
Andrew D
23 days ago
Reply to  Steve

Good on them 🇩🇰

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
23 days ago
Reply to  Steve

So who will they be able to defend against relying totally on themselves I wonder.

Steve
Steve
23 days ago
Reply to  Spyinthesky

It’s not so much about defending, it’s about making them not a target anyone wants to mess with, basically offensive deterence.

Mr Bell
Mr Bell
24 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

HMG wont revisit anything, this is the Tory government of Sunak and Hunt, they wont do anything that involves making a sensible decision or investing in UK defences. Instead they much prefer to stick their heads in the sand and make sound bites, if the missile was manufactured by one of Sunak’s or his wife’s companies or investments or friends company you can guarantee that company would receive massive orders. Whether the missile defence system is any good or not is irrelevant.

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF
24 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Intriguing argument and possibly/probably both truthful and merited, but have never understood a rational basis for any intelligent person/politician to embrace that philosophy. If RU/UKR and Israel/Hamas conflicts demonstrate anything, it is that one can either be a pauper or a billionaire and yet be equally dead, if the incoming ordnance lands on one’s coordinates. In reality, only a secondary issue for Americans (by treaty obligation), but sincerely believe someone should convince HMG to contemplate GBAD somewhat seriously. Surely, there have to be a few ministers who have taken a history course which covered WW II timeframe, and are intelligent… Read more »

Andrew D
Andrew D
23 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

👍

Jim
Jim
23 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I agree, unfortunately theatre level air defence has always been left to the USA and Germany. It’s the main capability gap UK land forces have.

We are participating in the German lead program for missile defence that’s acquiring arrow 3 which should provide some protection to UK mainland. However I doubt we will acquire any missiles directly. Instead probably providing radar coverage.

We always had excellent point defences with rapier and now CAMM.

Andrew D
Andrew D
23 days ago
Reply to  Mr Bell

Sunaks head in the sand 🏖

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
23 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Indeed I wonder who is going to take out incoming missiles from the high North I fear our brains work only in an East West axis which is naive.

Andrew D
Andrew D
24 days ago
Reply to  Chris

Second that 🤔

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
24 days ago

Do you mean ‘US’ rather than ‘UK’ in article title?

Neville Crabbe
Neville Crabbe
24 days ago

I think you meant US, not UK!

Tom
Tom
24 days ago

I guess this is US and Switzerland rather than UK – Potential Typo?

Richard Beedall
Richard Beedall
24 days ago

I wish the UK would start taking air defence more seriously. A few QRA Typhoon’s doesn’t cut the mustard any more.

Andrew D
Andrew D
24 days ago

Just been talking about this in another post ,agree another 2 Squadrons of Typhoons would be good and for back up more Sky sabre platforms .I’ve been saying for sometime our Sky Sabre Batteries in Poland should be brought back to the UK now that Poland have Beef up there Defences.However it will be 0 Squadrons of Typhoons coming ,Sky Sabre Batteries coming home or more Batteries maybe. But even if we had platforms available it would be a manpower problem sadly 🙄 🇬🇧

DaveyB
DaveyB
23 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

India initially built their Su30MKIs from kits supplied by Sukhoi. However as part of the trade, India insisted on technology transfer. So India now makes parts for their Su30s. Not sure on the percentage. But if India can produce these parts for export, I’m sure Russia will be willing to buy them. Similar with China, with their unlicensed copies of the Su-27, the J11. China have claimed that their latest version the J-16 is better than Russia’s newest Su-35. It must be a massive kick in the face, to go begging to China for spares?

Andrew D
Andrew D
23 days ago
Reply to  DaveyB

Interesting to know , do like them SU35s mind .😏

Andrew D
Andrew D
23 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

🍺

Si
Si
23 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

What air defence does the Uk currently have?
Is it just the one battery of Sky sabre?
I am puzzled why we have never invested in a solid air defencev system like most other countries

Andrew D
Andrew D
22 days ago
Reply to  Si

To be honest it’s not really well knowing how many Sky Sabre Batteries the UK have .But I think it’s a case of been able to count on one hand.Some are in Poland ,at least one in the Falklands island’s.There was a plan to invest in a new Missile defence system when Blood Hound was been with drawer from service .But the wall came down in Germany and money took away from defence spending so we were left with the short range Ripper for many years .But it’s been a bad decision to be left with with nothing for AD… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
22 days ago
Reply to  Si

We have no UK based and dedicated GBAD whatsoever. We do, however, have a comprehensive wider AD system covering the UKADR, and it is being expanded and improved as we speak, comprising aircraft, ground based radar sites ( known as RRH’s Remote Radar Heads ), linked to other sensors, ships, and C3 systems linking it all together. Our forces have been expeditionary in nature since the Cold Wars end, so it was not seen as an area of concern or priority. The MoD’s own DIS ( now renamed DI ) has threats and assessments orgs who monitor this and advice… Read more »

Andrew D
Andrew D
21 days ago

With out a doubt our Artillery really needs to grow not just with Gun platforms but also AD however I am a little on the fence by all means give the Army AD for the Battlefield ,but when it comes to UKADR should this not go over to RAF maybe DM 🤔

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
21 days ago
Reply to  Andrew D

Yes, it should. That’s the thing. It’s needed. Who pays? What budget? Which people? What goes to pay for it?
It’s always priorities and robbing Peter pay Paul.
Airborne’s RAF Reg idea seems most likely as they did it fairly recently with the Rapier Sqns in the Cold War.

Andrew D
Andrew D
21 days ago

🍺 DM

Paul
Paul
17 days ago
Reply to  Si

Not never. The UK used to have quite a lot of Bloodhound & Thunderbird area defence SAMs. Bloodhound was in service 1958-1991, & Thunderbird 1959-77. Bloodhound was exported to a few countries.

JJ Smallpiece
JJ Smallpiece
23 days ago

Not sure what the problem is? Put a few Rock Ape gunners around the perimeter fence at Lossie with SA80s and GPMGs

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli
22 days ago
Reply to  JJ Smallpiece

Lol. They are already up there.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky
23 days ago

I wonder if the US expect to require permission before any of these are actually used in a conflict.