Britain’s skies are about to become slightly less vulnerable. The Ministry of Defence has announced the purchase of six additional Land Ceptor missile launchers – the heart of the Sky Sabre system – in a £118 million deal with MBDA.

At one level, this is an industrial success story. The contract secures 140 jobs in Bolton and supports thousands more across the defence supply chain. Ministers are eager to stress that it delivers on the Government’s “Plan for Change”, tying national security firmly to national prosperity.

But look beneath the upbeat rhetoric and a more complicated picture emerges. The new systems will double the Army’s deployable Sky Sabre capability. That sounds impressive until one realises how limited Britain’s existing ground-based air defence is. For years, successive governments treated such capabilities as peripheral luxuries, not core requirements. The new investment represents a belated recognition of the threat environment Britain faces – one in which Russian cruise missiles rain down on Ukrainian cities and swarms of cheap Iranian drones test NATO’s eastern flank.

A system designed for the threats of today

Sky Sabre, unlike the elderly Rapier system it replaced, is genuinely modern. It combines three elements: a powerful Giraffe radar, a battle management system, and the Land Ceptor launcher firing CAMM (Common Anti-Air Modular Missiles). The sophistication lies not only in the missile’s agility and accuracy – it can hit a target the size of a tennis ball travelling at twice the speed of sound – but in the ability to control the simultaneous flight of two dozen interceptors. In practical terms, that means it can counter a saturation attack, the kind of tactic Russia has employed relentlessly against Ukraine’s energy grid.

It is also flexible. The Army can deploy the launchers as standalone units, or integrate them within the broader Sky Sabre architecture. This modularity makes it easier to deploy abroad, whether on NATO’s eastern frontier or in expeditionary operations further afield. Indeed, British gunners from 16 Regiment Royal Artillery have already taken the system to Poland on Operation Stifftail, providing a visible demonstration of solidarity with allies worried about Russia’s next move.

Industrial politics and defence economics

Yet the timing of the announcement, and its presentation, is as political as it is strategic. The Government is determined to present defence not just as a national security imperative but as a driver of economic growth. MBDA’s Bolton site already employs 1,300 people, with 700 more jobs announced earlier this year. Ministers point to the wider supply chain – more than 5,000 jobs across other MBDA sites – as evidence that defence investment creates a “defence dividend” for Britain’s regions.

Luke Pollard, the Armed Forces Minister, was keen to stress that this is about prosperity as much as protection. “We are implementing the government’s Plan for Change with defence as an engine to drive growth,” he said, signalling that the forthcoming Defence Industrial Strategy will be framed less around military doctrine and more around domestic economics. This is not a new approach; governments from Attlee to Thatcher tied defence orders to regional employment. But it does highlight how procurement is increasingly pitched as an industrial policy lever.

Critics will argue that this is putting the cart before the horse. Defence equipment should be bought on the basis of military need, not job creation. The Ministry of Defence has a long history of wasting money on politically convenient but strategically dubious purchases. In this case, however, there is no doubt that Britain urgently requires more ground-based air defence. The question is whether six additional launchers – even if they double the deployable fleet – are sufficient for a serious threat environment.

NATO commitments and British readiness

Britain’s Strategic Defence Review (SDR), published earlier this year, pledged a “NATO-first” approach. That means not only maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent and robust conventional forces, but also plugging gaps in alliance capabilities. One of those glaring gaps is integrated air and missile defence in Europe. For decades, NATO relied on American Patriot batteries to provide protection against hostile aircraft and missiles. But Washington’s attention is drifting towards the Pacific, and Europe must increasingly fend for itself.

Sky Sabre is Britain’s answer to this dilemma. It was recently tested during Exercise Formidable Shield in the Outer Hebrides, where it successfully intercepted targets under NATO command. But when set against the scale of Russian missile and drone use in Ukraine – thousands of projectiles launched over the course of months – Britain’s inventory looks miniscule. Doubling the number of deployable systems is a start, not an end point.

Here lies the awkward truth: Britain has been coasting on a minimal air defence posture for decades. During the Cold War, the RAF’s interceptors and NATO’s layered missile shield provided reassurance. After 1991, the threat was judged remote and money was diverted elsewhere. Today, however, it is impossible to ignore that Britain itself – not just its deployed forces – is vulnerable. Hostile drones have already been used to probe infrastructure in Europe. A Russian missile strike on NATO territory, whether deliberate or accidental, is not an abstract scenario but a real contingency that planners must reckon with.

A belated recognition of reality

This purchase is therefore best understood as the Government catching up with reality. The announcement comes on top of £1 billion of funding earmarked in the SDR for homeland air and missile defence. But even that larger sum is modest compared to the challenge. Britain’s cities, air bases, and energy facilities remain essentially undefended against a mass missile strike. Sky Sabre is an excellent medium-range system, but it is not designed to counter hypersonic weapons, nor can it cover the entire country with so few batteries.

The danger is that ministers will congratulate themselves for “doubling” capability without admitting how thin the baseline was to begin with. When Lieutenant Colonel James Boutle, commanding officer of 16 Regiment Royal Artillery, describes Sky Sabre as a “step change” in capability, he is right – but only because Britain was starting from such a low base. The real test will be whether this purchase is the first stage of a larger effort, or whether it will be treated as a headline achievement that allows the Treasury to resist further spending.

The lessons from Ukraine

Events in Ukraine should give ministers pause. Kyiv’s air defences, strengthened by deliveries of Western systems including Patriot and IRIS-T, have saved the country from catastrophic destruction. But even with extensive foreign aid, Ukraine still struggles to intercept every Russian missile and drone. The sheer volume of attacks has forced Ukraine to husband its interceptors carefully. For Britain, which has only a fraction of Ukraine’s stockpiles, the lesson is clear: quantity matters as much as quality. Six more launchers with limited numbers of CAMM missiles cannot by themselves provide a credible shield for Britain’s homeland.

Moreover, the nature of threats is evolving. Drones costing very little money can harass billion-pound warships and knock out power substations. Sky Sabre can engage drones, but using a sophisticated interceptor missile against a cheap quadcopter is neither cost-effective nor sustainable. Britain will need a layered defence, combining high-end systems like Sky Sabre with cheaper counter-drone solutions and electronic warfare measures. Without that, the risk is that adversaries can simply swamp Britain’s defences with inexpensive munitions.

Strategic choices ahead

What this purchase symbolises is the broader debate about Britain’s defence posture. Is the UK serious about rebuilding its conventional forces to meet a deteriorating security environment, or is it content with incremental improvements packaged as strategic leaps? The Government’s rhetoric suggests ambition, but the spending numbers suggest caution.

Defence is once again becoming central to national politics. With American reliability in doubt, NATO allies are under pressure to shoulder more responsibility. Britain prides itself on being a leading contributor to alliance operations. But leadership requires investment. If London wishes to maintain its reputation as Europe’s most capable military power after France, then small-scale procurements like this must be the start of a sustained build-up, not a one-off announcement.

A cautious step, not a giant leap

In the end, the £118 million contract with MBDA should be welcomed – it boosts jobs, strengthens industry, and delivers a vital enhancement to Britain’s air defence. But it should not be mistaken for a transformative shift in capability. Six launchers, no matter how advanced, do not provide the kind of coverage Britain requires in a world where drones, cruise missiles, and hypersonics are proliferating.

The political spin may emphasise prosperity and the “Plan for Change”, but the strategic reality demands greater urgency. Britain has the technological base, the industrial capacity, and the skilled workforce to rebuild its air defences properly. What is lacking is sustained political will. Until that emerges, the doubling of Sky Sabre systems will remain a modest step in the right direction – welcome, but not even remotely near to sufficient.

Main Image: By Ministry of Defence – https://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/, archived source, OGL v1.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=116190856