The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has taken a step forward in its Science and Technology Oriented Research and Development in Missile Defence (STORM) programme by announcing the shortlist of companies vying for the six-year contract.
This phase brings the UK closer to implementing a comprehensive missile defence strategy, aimed at countering an array of advanced missile threats, including ballistic missiles, hypersonic vehicles, and hybrid systems.
The contract, valued between £110 million and £251 million, covers the research, development, and delivery of next-generation missile defence technologies.
The shortlisted companies include:
- Airbus Defence, Space
- BAE Systems Operations
- Frazer-Nash Consultancy
- Leonardo UK
- Lockheed Martin UK Ampthil
- PriceWaterhouseCoopers
- QinetiQ
- Roke-Manor Research
These firms will now compete to deliver on the STORM framework, which forms a central part of the MoD’s strategy to enhance the UK’s missile defence capabilities. The STORM programme is designed to tackle a broad range of missile threats through research and development activities spanning several key areas: counter-proliferation, deterrence, counterforce, active defence, and passive defence.
The selected contractor will be responsible for advancing the UK’s ability to detect, track, and intercept threats from ballistic missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs), and hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs).
Project ‘STORM’
Back in July, the Ministry of Defence has announced a comprehensive framework for missile defence research and development, titled Science and Technology Oriented Research and Development in Missile Defence (STORM).
The contract will manage the delivery of research covering all activities to counter ballistic missiles and advanced threats, including but not limited to simple non-separating threats, complex separating threats, Manoeuvring Re-Entry Vehicles (MaRVs), Multiple Independently Targetable Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs), Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs), Hypersonic Cruise Missiles (HCM), and hybrid threats.
The research required will cover analysis, experimentation, trials, and technology/system development across all pillars of missile defence:
- Counter-proliferation: Measures to minimise the spread of missile technology.
- Deterrence: Measures to discourage the use of missile threats.
- Counterforce: Actions to reduce the quantity of missiles and supporting equipment available to an aggressor during a conflict.
- Active defence: Strategies to detect, track, intercept, and disable or destroy missiles in flight.
- Passive defence: Measures to mitigate and recover from the effects of missile impacts.
The STORM framework, with an estimated budget of £110 million to £251 million, addresses a broad spectrum of missile defence activities.
According to the MoD, the contract will “manage delivery of research covering all activities to counter ballistic missiles and advanced threats including but not limited to simple non-separating threats, complex separating threats, Manoeuvring Re-Entry Vehicles (MaRVs) and Multiple Independently Targetable Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs), Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs), Hypersonic Cruise Missiles (HCM) and hybrid threats which share characteristics with BM, HGV and/or HCM.”
The MoD outlined the historical and ongoing challenges posed by ballistic missiles:
“Since the first V2 attack on London in 1944, ballistic missiles have posed a near constant threat to the UK, its overseas interests, and forces. Adversaries continue to invest in and proliferate increasingly advanced ballistic and manoeuvrable threat systems to challenge our freedom of action.”
The MoD specifies the pillars of missile defence research under the STORM framework as follows:
- “Counter-Proliferation: Measures to minimise the spread of missile technology.”
- “Deterrence: Measures to discourage the use of missile threats.”
- “Counterforce: Actions to reduce the quantity of missiles and supporting equipment available to an aggressor during a conflict.”
- “Active Defence: Strategies to detect, track, intercept, and disable or destroy missiles in flight.”
- “Passive Defence: Measures to mitigate and recover from the effects of missile impacts.”
The UK Missile Defence Centre (MDC), a unique government-industry partnership within the MoD Head Office, will spearhead the STORM framework, according to the previous notice. The MDC is responsible for all UK missile defence Research & Development (R&D) and provides support to decision-makers on all aspects of missile defence. The MDC was established to “provide a pipeline of funding to sustain SQEP (Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel) in relevant UK industry sectors.”
The MoD highlights the strategic importance of the STORM framework: “The Missile Defence R&D Category Strategy, approved in May 2023, recommended creation of a new route to market bringing together core research and technology maturation projects into a single contract, enhancing research outcomes and supply chain efficiency.”
The selected contractor will work closely with the MDC to “design and manage a contract pipeline to deliver the Missile Defence R&D category’s research requirements.” This includes large, multi-year research technology maturation projects, multinational and multi-supplier trials, and short-term rapid analysis. The coordination function is envisaged to be co-located with the Missile Defence Centre in Farnborough.
The notice further details that “the research required will cover analysis, experimentation, trials and technology/system development across all pillars of missile defence.”
The STORM framework is part of the 2020 MOD Science & Technology (S&T) Strategy, which aims to “sustain, exploit, and develop UK industrial and academic expertise to continue to develop next-generation and generation-after-next technologies applicable to Integrated Air and Missile Defence.”
What is the point in sky sabre if it can’t protect us from most air threats?
To protect us from the threats it is capable of protecting us from. Just because it’s an air defence platform doesn’t mean it can engage every aerial threat. 30mm naval guns can’t sink every ship out there, an SA80 won’t destroy a tank, etc. Still have applications.
It is horses for courses. Sky sabre is not designed to counter all missiles because it is not expected to counter all missiles.
You would not use Ballastic or hypersonic missiles in the battle field but you would expect to see rocket artillery, glide bombs etc but the battle field is very fluid
SkySaber is not made or operated with the intent of protecting us, it’s sole job is to protect the army. All we have protecting us is the ever strained belief in MAD and a couple of QRA Typhoons. The UK has always been terrible when it comes to national air defenses; we have never invested in bunkers for the general public unlike many of our European allies have for years, we have no long range, permanently placed or rapidly deployable GBAD systems in country (as many nations do or are starting to bring in over major population centers) and our… Read more »
“always” and “never” aren’t the correct words to use. The UK fought and won the world’s first major defensive air battle in 1940 and lots of air raid shelters were built in many cities and towns across the UK from 1939 to at least 1943. By the 1950s with the cold war being the primary focus it didn’t make sense to spend money at huge rates on these things. We were still spending some though. Including bunkers for councils in the 1970s and 80s. We have been far too slow though to recognize the threat from Putin’s Russia and we… Read more »
My understanding is that Skysabre is a battlefield point defence system.
Intercepting Ballistic missiles or fast/hypersonic cruise missiles requires a much more sophisticated radar system, and bigger missiles with a longer range.
Every system cannot defend against every type of threat..a warhead from an intercontinental ballistic missile traveling at 15,000 miles an hour and at an altitude of 150 miles needs a multi stage orbital booster with exoatmospheric kill vehicle and a very powerful large aperture radar looking straight up ..a drone at 100 feet travelling at 100mph needs a totally different solution, including a look down radar, looking for small slow targets against ground clutter and a small mobile thing to intercept and kill it.
Systems already exist, just save time and money and buy what’s already been developed! This is all about bunging money to industry and not about defence! This is why we spend so much and have bugger all to show for it.
I suppose the issue is at what level…yes all the systems exist but be don’t have 100 billion pounds to defend against everything…nor the industry and technical capabilities nor are they all available on the open market. If you really want a credible defence against intermediate and intercontinental ballistic missiles you need a space industry that’s capable of building and launching multi stage orbital rockets. The U.S. is not selling its GBI and GMD systems to anyone. your correct if all they want is a defence against short and medium range ballistic missiles with non separating warheads or single separating… Read more »
The scale of a full on nuclear attack and MIRV is not realistically something which can be defended within our budget constraints. We have a defence against that already in Trident.
The primary risk factor which GBAD can realistically cover is from cruise missiles and conventionally armed ballistic missiles. I just can’t see the point in trying to reinvent the wheel with our track record of project delays and going over budget. It will be 2040 at best before we see anything result from this.
I would hope Lockhead and Airbus are only included for competitions sake and are not actually serious contenders.
It is bad enough contracting out the thinking part of military, it’s even worse when the thinking part takes orders from Washington or Brussels.
Lockheed makes perfect sense as they make the THAAD and are one of the primary contractors of AEGIS ashore- both seem to be the most logical solution for the UK if using off the shelf tech.
All these companies are on the framework and they will each have different areas they will be actively looking at. It will now be a simple process for the MOD to assign work to any of those companies. They might have a mini competion but I am not suspecting PWC (for example) are likely to be producing any hardware. They will probably be more interested in the other areas of the framework. This is a decent step forward.
UK also needs a fully integrated, multi-redundant, multi-layer missile/drone air defence software system that as as secure as can possibly be, to control all of this. I hope this is in place or rapidly under development by the UK?
Storm is very very interesting, it’s not really about getting some defence against a small number of cruise and short range ballistic missile defence for key targets..look at the scope it’s huge. Independent multiple reentry vehicles are in international ballistic level threat..that they are looking at combating these is a profoundly significant paradigm shift ( it may be a total waste of cash..but it a profound shift). Also look at the pillars..deterrence, counter force, active and passive defence ( civil defence structures)…that’s not about buying a missile defence system that’s about how you fight a peer war/ potential nuclear war… Read more »
Why bother, we are not going to invest in anything.
Goodie. Another research project. How many is this for the currently broken armed forces some time in la la land.
Surely it would make sense to just acquire the SAMP/T system like the Italians and french, it’s proven and highly capable, we would then also have a common pool of missiles with the navy in that case too like CAMM.
Wonder what PriceWaterhouseCoopers are going to be offering ?
They have exceptional spreadsheet skills and a world renowned PowerPoint presentation department. As that’s all that will emerge from this project they are key.
More millions for more studies which will go nowhere.
Either buy Sea Viper for the land or buy AEGIS Ashore.
I do think the UK does need an OTH radar system.
The MOD said that since 1944 ballistic missiles have posed a near constant threat, so erm why do we have zero defence against them?
6th largest GDP in the world, FA to show for it.
So, the threat list: “1)simple non-separating threats, 2)complex separating threats, 3)Manoeuvring Re-Entry Vehicles (MaRVs) and 4)Multiple Independently Targetable Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs), 5)Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs), 6)Hypersonic Cruise Missiles (HCM) and 7)hybrid threats which share characteristics with BM, HGV and/or HCM.” 1 and 2 are categories that describe the rest, to my simple mind, rather than weapon types on their own. 3-5 seem to describe ballistic threats of various kinds, a number of them associated with ICBMs (i.e. nuclear weapons). I’m not sure that we’re in a place that we need a defence against them- from the perspective that likelihood of… Read more »