News story: British Army’s new air defence missile blasts airborne target by Baltic Sea

#1
Trials of the new Land Ceptor weapon took place close to the Baltic Sea on a Swedish test fire range, with video footage showing a missile being launched from a vehicle and destroying an aerial target in a display of the new weapon’s accuracy and power.

Built by MBDA, Land Ceptor comprises the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM), a launcher vehicle and two fire unit support vehicles. It is being developed to protect British troops on operations from aerial threats, including hostile combat aircraft and air-launched munitions.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson said:


In the face of intensifying threats, it is vital that our Armed Forces have the capabilities to keep Britain safe.

Land Ceptor will be a formidable battlefield barrier, protecting our troops from strikes and enemy aircraft while on operations.

Land Ceptor is highly mobile, can be rapidly deployed across challenging terrain, and be brought into action in less than 20 minutes.

From the same family of weapons systems as Sea Ceptor, which will defend the Royal Navy’s Type 23 and Type 26 Frigates, Land Ceptor will provide the stopping power within the cutting-edge Sky Sabre air defence system, and will equip 16th Regiment, Royal Artillery.


Land Ceptor completes it's first successful firing trials. Crown copyright.

The success of the Land Ceptor trials follows the Defence Secretary’s recent announcement of Sea Ceptor entering service with the Royal Navy proves CAMM’s effectiveness both in the land and maritime environments.

The trial, which followed previous munitions tests, was the first time Land Ceptor had been test-fired as a whole system, including the cutting-edge SAAB Giraffe radar.

The development and manufacture of Land Ceptor is enabled through a £250 million contract between Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) and MBDA. Work to develop both Land Ceptor and Sea Ceptor is sustaining 760 MBDA jobs in the UK.

DE&S Director Weapons, Richard Smart, said:


This trials firing is an important stepping stone towards bringing Land Ceptor into service with the British Army as part of the wider Sky Sabre air defence system. Land Ceptor performed as expected and the firing has helped us to verify innovative modelling of overall system performance.

The DE&S project team, based in Bristol, will continue to work closely with our suppliers to ensure this cutting-edge system provides an effective shield for UK troops as they, in turn, protect the UK’s security and interests.

Land Ceptor has far greater battlefield awareness and intelligence than the current Rapier system as its engagement range is three times greater and the Giraffe radar and Rafael Battlespace Management Command, Control, Compute, Communicate and Inform (BMC4I) system within Sky Sabre will be able to observe incoming threats from seven times further away.

The missiles can be launched in quick succession to defeat as many as eight different threats at once, even if obstacles such as trees and terrain are in the way.

The system will now undergo further development and trials before Sky Sabre enters service, in the early 2020s.

Continue reading...
 
#3
does this replace rapier or does it provide new capability.

It this in response to a new threat from a russian weapon?

I´ve always thought it odd that we seem to have very little in the way of surface to air capability.
 
#4
#8
Replaces Rapier, vastly more capable system.
well hopefully we get some more of them than the handful of rapier that he have.

I mean, it has to be cheaper to put them along the west coast to keep the russians away than it is to send up typhoons every time they get close

I am obviously, missing some vital piece of information because even the French have a decent SAM shield, i dont understand why we dont have / need one
 
#10
well hopefully we get some more of them than the handful of rapier that he have.

I mean, it has to be cheaper to put them along the west coast to keep the russians away than it is to send up typhoons every time they get close

I am obviously, missing some vital piece of information because even the French have a decent SAM shield, i dont understand why we dont have / need one
Whilst one hates to be pedantic, it's the East the Russians come from. You know, the whole East vs West thing. Western Democracy (that's us) vs the Beast From The East, Never Eat Shredded Wheat. That kind of thing.
 
#11
well hopefully we get some more of them than the handful of rapier that he have.

I mean, it has to be cheaper to put them along the west coast to keep the russians away than it is to send up typhoons every time they get close

I am obviously, missing some vital piece of information because even the French have a decent SAM shield, i dont understand why we dont have / need one

'SAM shields' are Gods way of telling you your Sky Gods are falling down on the job.
 
#12
Whilst one hates to be pedantic, it's the East the Russians come from. You know, the whole East vs West thing. Western Democracy (that's us) vs the Beast From The East, Never Eat Shredded Wheat. That kind of thing.
No I love to be pedantic so it's worth pointing out that a lot of Russian aircraft, having gone round Norway actually approach the UK from the West.
 
#13
No I love to be pedantic so it's worth pointing out that a lot of Russian aircraft, having gone round Norway actually approach the UK from the West.
That would be the Norway off to the East of Scotland yeah?
 
#15
well hopefully we get some more of them than the handful of rapier that he have.

I mean, it has to be cheaper to put them along the west coast to keep the russians away than it is to send up typhoons every time they get close

I am obviously, missing some vital piece of information because even the French have a decent SAM shield, i dont understand why we dont have / need one
The RAF Bloodhound SAMs were withdrawn from service in 1991. A LTC Option was raised to replace them with Patriots, but the end of the Cold War and the desire for a peace dividend put a stop to that. If the Bloodhounds had gone a few years earlier we would probably have got a replacement. A contributory factor is that the SAMS were operated by Engineers, rather than GD Branch. At the time I did ask CAS if the SAM capability would have been retained if it was run by GD's. He was not impressed.
 
#16
Interesting to contrast some of the comments here with some of the observations made on the F-35 thread. In particular, @Magic_Mushroom's response to the inevitable question about the Su-57 versus, say, the F-22 - that a direct comparison is perhaps inappropriate because the Su-57 is seen as part of a layered system which includes SAMs, etc.

Ultimately, we bailed out of having a SAM belt because of money. I can still remember going past the fields of Bloodhounds on the bus to school at RAF Bruggen back in the mid-70s. We now go 'up' as far as Rapier, and no further. It's not because we couldn't use or don't need a system such as Patriot. It's because the lack of money has led us to decide that we 'don't' need one.
 
#17
Interesting to contrast some of the comments here with some of the observations made on the F-35 thread. In particular, @Magic_Mushroom's response to the inevitable question about the Su-57 versus, say, the F-22 - that a direct comparison is perhaps inappropriate because the Su-57 is seen as part of a layered system which includes SAMs, etc.

Ultimately, we bailed out of having a SAM belt because of money. I can still remember going past the fields of Bloodhounds on the bus to school at RAF Bruggen back in the mid-70s. We now go 'up' as far as Rapier, and no further. It's not because we couldn't use or don't need a system such as Patriot. It's because the lack of money has led us to decide that we 'don't' need one.

Or ... we’ve demonstrated we can destroy fixed SAM sites at will and don’t place such faith in them?

Mobile short range SAM systems are a different issue..
 
#18
Or ... we’ve demonstrated we can destroy fixed SAM sites at will and don’t place such faith in them?

Mobile short range SAM systems are a different issue..
I wouldn't consider Patriot or S-400/500 to be fixed in the way that Bloodhound was.

...and with ALARM gone, what are you suggesting we hit these 'non-mobile' SAMs with?
 
#19
The RAF Bloodhound SAMs were withdrawn from service in 1991. A LTC Option was raised to replace them with Patriots, but the end of the Cold War and the desire for a peace dividend put a stop to that. If the Bloodhounds had gone a few years earlier we would probably have got a replacement. A contributory factor is that the SAMS were operated by Engineers, rather than GD Branch. At the time I did ask CAS if the SAM capability would have been retained if it was run by GD's. He was not impressed.
i was under the impression that engagement controllers where failed fighter controllers, no one but the yanks could afford patriots, iirc we bought a shit load of hounds back second hand off the swiss or swedes
 
#20

Top