The Ministry of Defence has showcased the Raven air defence system in a recent video on its official YouTube channel, providing insight into how the innovative system has become a key asset in Ukraine’s air defence network.
The video features Colonel Todd from Task Force Kindred, who provides an overview of Raven’s development and operational effectiveness.
According to the MOD video, the Raven system was conceived and delivered within three months in 2022. It is built on the HMT 600 Supercat vehicle, utilising surplus ASRAAM air-to-air missiles mounted on adapted rails from decommissioned aircraft such as the Hawk, Jaguar, and Tornado.
This rapid innovation led to one of the most effective short-range air defence systems currently in use in Ukraine.
Colonel Todd describes Raven as an “amazing system” that was developed in collaboration between UK industry, the RAF Air and Space Warfare Centre, MBDA, and DE&S. He notes that it has demonstrated significant success in Ukraine, with over 400 engagements recorded so far, achieving a success rate of more than 70%. The system has proven particularly effective against drones, cruise missiles, and potentially against aircraft and helicopters.
The Raven system can be operated either from within the vehicle cab or remotely from up to 50 metres away, using a gamepad-style controller to identify, track, and engage targets. This flexible approach allows operators to remain in relative safety while maintaining high responsiveness.
As described in the video, the Raven is praised by Ukrainian forces for its reliability and utility within their air defence network. Colonel Todd stated: “The Ukrainians love this system. They said how effective it is and how important it has been as part of their air defence network.”
The MOD highlights that eight Raven systems were initially sent to Ukraine in 2022, followed by an additional five systems. The project utilises equipment from the UK’s existing inventory that was otherwise scheduled for disposal, allowing support to Ukraine at minimal cost to UK operational readiness.
Colonel Todd explains the value of the project: “The Raven system, both the vehicle, the rail, and the missile, uses systems which were in the UK inventory but were no longer required. These were missiles which had had their operational use in the RAF and were otherwise planned for disposal. Therefore, the support to Ukraine has not been at the expense of UK operations or readiness.”
Looks like something the UK could use, probably better range that HVM on Stormer , perhaps with a couple of Camm as well and a data feed from a supporting radar. Far lighter and mobile than Sky Sabre and could be lifted by a Chinook?
Kudos to everyone involved 👏👏
Britain at its historical best, just wish we could be so effective when the pressure isn’t on. Nothing like getting decisions made and effective ones at that than when minds are focused. This would have been deemed far too crude to have been passed in peacetime which might be true but it shows what a development of the idea could offer.
Need this back in the UK inventory. Much of it should be able to be replicated together with new missiles. It would be intesting to see how quickly the vehicles could be replicated here in the UK and perhaps we could distribute them around the country protecting whatever needs to be protected.
The Vehicles are British built by SC formally known as Supacat and have been around for decades. The same version of the vehicle was trialled as a 155mm SPG and a lightweight MLRS by MOD but never adopted.
MOD just seem to not like buying UK products 🤷🏼♂️
Considering the UK has a very large ASRAAM stock why the hell has the MOD not put together a version for Uk armed forces, give it to the RAF REG for airfield defence.
Because it’s not been given a fancy Project acronym, commanded by a senior officer as PM nor actually instigated by the MOD Army establishment. Ergo it will never be ordered !
It would need a multi billion pound budget and 10 year project allocated first if we were to use it.
One Army have taken over and Gucci’s it within an inch of its life and spent 10 years on that they will cancel the program and say they need a longer range version with extra twiddly bits.
You know it makes sense.
Where did I hear that before….oh, yes it was Sky Sabre!
Steady on there !..🤔 You’re using common sense
RAF and the Army Brigades, with these available, shoot and scoot
But as others have said, it would become a more expensive GUCCI, late and complicated mess, and then cancelled
UNLESS by some miracle, there might be a whiff of change on procurement
Because its cheap and wont destroy the defence budget with a multi-billion pound 15 year programme that will lead to x6 launchers only and then be scrapped in 5 years after entering service.
In all seriousness this is precisely the kind of British innovation that helped us to win WW2- we have to innovate, adapt and then bring these innovations into service.
So what that it has a 70% success rate- that’s a damn sight higher than rapier ever was plus it means if two launchers fire at the same target they have over a 100% success rate- so my suggestion is buy 100 launchers, give them to the RAF regiment and reserves and hey presto RAF airfield defence has just had a 100% increase in its SHORAD capability- from nothing to something. Cost for 100 launchers is going to be what £100 million (1 million each?)- making this the cheapest polyvalent air defence system the world has ever seen.
They’d be idiots not to consider this in the UK “GBAD” mix. Effective, cheap, could probably be improved on and available right now!
Shared inventory pool and a smart way to use up older expiring missiles. Well done 🇬🇧 Industry & boffins! Okay, Maybe there’s potential for a naval , containerised or cannistered version too? For Opvs, RFAs, even the carriers, something longer ranged thsn Starstresk and Martlet.
Are you describing CAMM?
It looks like ASRAAM and Raven don’t use radar, but CAMM and Sea Ceptor do. ASRAAM is fire and forget, but there’s an option to do mid-course corrections on CAMM. I think that means CAMM has beyond line of sight and ASRAAM doesn’t.
However, I agree we are in need of a containerized something for ad hoc naval upgunning, and if we can’t deliver CAMM in a box for whatever reason, these would be better than nothing.
ASRAAM does lock on after launch so I see no reason why it shouldn’t be able to do BLOS as long as the location of the target is known.
Though it can’t do midcourse updates.
Not quite true with the “over 100% success rate”.
Each missile has a 30% chance of missing. That means that firing two at a target gives a chance of 0.3*0.3=9% of missing. It’s like dice: rolling 6 times doesn’t guarantee you get a 6, just each extra roll decreases the chance that you haven’t yet rolled one.
‘So what that it has a 70% success rate- that’s a damn sight higher than rapier ever was plus it means if two launchers fire at the same target they have over a 100% success rate’
Not entirely how this works, from a mathematical perspective. The more times you fire, the more likely it becomes that one missile will hit. However, the probability of a successful intercept never climbs above 100%. For example, if ASRAAM hits 70% of the time in this configuration, and we assume that the outcome of each launch is independent of the outcome of any other launch (unlikely IRL), then the probability of two missing becomes 30% squared, or 9%. The probability of three missing is 30% cubed, or 2.7%, and the probability of four missing the target is 30% to the power four, or 0.81%. So, the more missiles you fire, the higher your chance of a successful intercept, but you can never claim a 100% chance of intercept (unless you’re an IRIS-T SLM operator).
Really, this is pretty poor and simplified modelling however, as modelling missile intercept rates with basic probability runs into a few snags. This method above relies upon the events being independent. That is to say, the outcome of one launch doesn’t impact the success of the second. In reality, there are all kinds of factors that make this scenario one of two dependent events. The most obvious is that if the first shot is successful, the second is guaranteed to miss. Another might arise if there is an issue with the launch platform, in which case, the failure of one missile likely precludes the failure of a second.
An excellent idea. Of course, the reason why this has not been undertaken is because nobody could agree who’s MoD budget it would come from
Cynically speaking, I’d also suggest it does not throw enough money at the MIC.
It’s a bit of a bodge at the moment, but there are a couple of things that could make it a pretty decent and more rounded system.
The most obvious is that the missiles are completely exposed, which isn’t great for longevity and means you have to take the cover off the seeker whenever active. Would be better to have the rail inside a canister, NASAMS style. That could also include a better reloading system, I have no idea how the missiles are reloaded at present but it can’t be easy on an upside down aircraft rail.
The second is that 2 missiles per launcher is pitiful, even on a small platform like the HMT. The Swedish manage 4 IRIS-T (albeit exposed) on the similarly sized BVS10, so there’s no reason why you couldn’t stack the canisters 4 across the whole width of the vehicle. With an improved reloading system, you wouldn’t need anyone to stand on the platform so that space can be used for more missiles.
Thirdly, the sensor on top of the cab has a 20km range. That’s enough for targeting the ASRAAM launch, but isn’t great for actually searching for targets. So it would be nice if a second vehicle with SAAB’s Giraffe 1X radar on a mast were developed to act as surveillance for a group of launchers.
Then you have a very compact air defence system that fits on both the HMT600 and, probably, the Viking if the Marines ever wanted air defence.
And the cost goes up… Stops being a cheap, easy to use defence and joins the mainstream.
Easy to use? Not so much at the moment. The bodged launcher and exposed missiles will increase the number of crew required for reloading and also add extra tactical considerations about when to prepare the missiles for launch rather than have them always available.
Cost is also an issue with the exposure, as writing off £300k missiles because a pebble was kicked up by a tyre would be a disaster.
Missile depth is a cost neutral thing, there are no extra adaptations needed so all you do is save the cost of 1 base vehicle for the same number of shots.
The radar thing is a nice to have, really, not necessary if all you want is a cheap point defence system but needed if there is no other way of searching for targets.
The end result would be a much more effective system that is easier to deploy and operate, RAVEN at present is extremely rough around the edges.
Raven uses a pair of rail launchers from the retired Tornado. These conform to a NATO standard for rail launched missile, hence why Tornado could have either ASRAAM or AIM-9 fitted. They are a doddle to fit, but require at least three people to slide the missile on (ASRAAM is around 88kg) and do up the connectors. Being upside down won’t make a difference.
A open ended canister to protect the missile when transiting would be a good idea. But it must allow access to the launcher, so a person can do up the connectors. It would be handy to have a moveable flap to cover the nose of the missile. Which stop damage to the seeker form FOD, but also prevents the seeker from becoming saturated. Which can then open, to allow the seeker to see the target for lock before launch mode. However, ASRAAM does have a lock after launch mode, so its not so critical.
What could be more critical is to have a four rail launcher, which would allow for more targets to be “intercepted”. A trainable (azimuth and elevation) launcher would also be beneficial, as it would help the lock on before launch mode. Plus allow for a HMG/autocannon to be fitted for interception/protection against FPV drones.
Sensor wise, yes you could go for a small X-band/Ku-band radar. But you can still use IR out past 20km for larger targets. If the vehicle also included the Stormer’s Air Defence Alerting Device (ADAD), this would give the operator a 360 degree autosearch. Which they then acquire and track the target from the ADAD. ADAD is pretty old now, It could be replaced with a more up to date system, which would likely increase its detection range against smaller targets.
Cost is a big driver, the Raven confirms to the keep it simple stupid (KISS) principle. Which can still be used, but also evolved. Turning the Launcher into a turreted system, will not be that expensive. Plus it will allow a 50 cal to be fitted with minimum need for a recoil system. The gold plated solution would be to add an autocannon. Which would need a beefier structure and cost a fair bit more. But then the question is, would Raven 2.0 be a standalone or a replacement for Stormer?
The MoD video said they used a whole load of different launch rails, from Tornado, Hawk, Jaguar.
Is there a reason why these sensitive seekers don’t have an “eyelid” to cover them before launch, or have the seeker fold sideways, like the eyes of a shark, to protect them?
I was also wondering whether, given the near 75 degree elevation angle shown in the header image, you could use CAMM instead of ASRAAM to improve the options for launcher positioning as well as increasing range?
The launchers are all the same model, produced originally by a US company then licensed built in the UK. It has been used on about a dozen different types of aircraft.
The sensors when switched on are constantly starring. The sensor is usually fixed inside the missile, with gimballed mirrors feeding the image to the sensor. These gimbslled mirrors give for example ASRAAM the ability to view +/- 90 degrees in azimuth and elevation. I don’t believe the gimbals could turn any further.
I have a feeling irises and eyelids aren’t used as they add weight, but also risk complexity. Especially when you consider an aircraft flying through the air is not a smooth flight but is constantly buffeted. Perhaps when considering these types of mechanisms, that they can’t be built robustly enough without adding significant weight.
The newer sensors do sort of have a blink capability. Which is where the sensor can momentarily be switched off and on again, which helps with light (thermal) saturation especially from flares. When unpowered, the sensor doesn’t need an eyelid. However, when not in use they will have a protective cover fitted.
There is an issue when you leave a sensor out in the sun all day with the power on. Especially for the sensors that require charge cooling from an inert gas. As the gas can only cool the sensor for so long, as it doesn’t have the thermal capacity to dump the heat. Missiles such as the latest AIM-9 and ASRAAM, don’t use gas for cooling the sensor any more, but use something akin to a Peltier semiconductor. Which means the sensor can stay cooler for longer.
Just to add, you need to cool the sensor as much as possible. As this helps differentiate the ambient thermal signatures from the ones you want to search for and track.
Raven’s ability to raise the launchers past 45, perhaps to the 60-70 degrees as shown in the videos. Might allow for a CAMM launch. The missile’s software must be able to cope with the ship heaving and rolling. So perhaps Raven could launch CAMM after all.
Do you reckon they could squeeze an extra 1 or 2 railed Asraam on this Supacat? At least three shots?
A nice 2×4 boxed Star Streak or Martlet might be doable also.
The UKs ability to improvise, adapt and overcome when needed never ceases to amaze me. Putting a Colonel in charge, probably with a team from DSTL and the RA made it happen; doubtless with a general wearing enough stars in support to kick roadblocks and bureaucracy out of the way when needed.
As others have commented, why not bring this into use with the British Army and RAF Regt? Even if it is not as shiny and sexy as some of the kit that we’d like, it seems to work. The apparent simplicity may make it a good option for army reserve RA units?
I have read a lot on cases like that where fantastic British innovations has been let down to the extent of great start-up companies being taken out of UK! I only wonder what is the problem? Is it corruption, sabotage from within or sheer stupidity of those high-ups !
It’s a cultural thing I think; our history has lead us to being a parliamentary constitutional monarchy – a sort of hybrid between a feudal system and a republic. Stable but perhaps not flexible or dynamic enough for some. Some successful entrepreneurs feel they can breathe easier in a republic.
Mostly it’s the lack of sources of cheap start-up capital. The cost of higher risk capital in the UK is far higher than the US. The ability to angel fund is limited, vulture capitalists want a guaranteed off-ramp and to own a lot of your company by that point, and UK banks don’t really do start up funding at all without collateral or a guarantor.
Well, two or three vehicles per batallion would seem to be a good cheap defence – not perfect, but then it would only be a cheap part of a much more comprehensive system, possibly even a ‘last ditch’ effort. We have gone too far in the direction of small numbers of expensive sophisticated systems generally – they need to bulke out by large quantities of cheaper systems.
It would be useful, no doubt, but I can’t help but feel that simply purchasing additional Sky Sabre platforms would be more efficient in the long term, and supplementing these with Martlet to provide a counter-drone force. Martlet is far cheaper than the base ASRAAM, whilst offering similar capability. The threat of cruise and ballistic missiles could then be covered by a development of Sky Sabre, much as we see IRIS-T SLM do in Ukraine. Equipping smaller groups with Martlet, either in its shoulder-launched configuration or mounted on a Boxer/Vamtac, whilst covering large areas with CAMM-MR and Typhoons to counter ballistic and cruise missiles would work well.
The large of stockpile of ASRAAM is useful, but much of it is approaching the end of its lifetime and as such cannot be relied upon. This matters less to Ukraine, and arguably should matter less to the UK, but nor should it be the default to rely on decades-old missiles. Raven is a useful stopgap, but not a long-term solution.
The main advantage that this has over Sky Sabre is the transportability. The minimum requirements for getting Sky Sabre functional is 3x 30 tonne, 8 wheeled trucks (Radar->Command and Control-> launcher) and a full battery needs 5. The cost of a battery is £250m, whereas a single HMT600 is approx. £1m. Let’s say £2m with the missiles and the upgrades I suggested above, for an entirely self contained system that weighs around 10 tonnes. CAMM is useful for protecting static locations like the Falklands or NATO in Estonia, but not so much for mobile army formations.
So the choice becomes, do you want a single Sky Sabre battery, defending an area approximately 80km wide, or a bulk purchase of 100 of these systems for point defence anywhere you want to put them?
I love Martlet, but it isn’t in the same league as ASRAAM. It needs line of sight for the whole engagement, which isn’t great for cruise missiles, and the range is limited to 7km versus a minimum of 12km for ASRAAM. A better combination would be ASRAAM for long range against larger targets, paired with a 30mm RWS and airburst ammo for smaller drones, which also fits on the HMT. The layers for air defence would then become Typhoon -> CAMM-MR -> CAMM/ASRAAM -> gun VSHORAD.
ASRAAM is still in production, so there aren’t issues with missile aging as long as the rate at which they are turned out is sufficient.
You can’t just divide production cost numbers like that for comparisons. 100 Ravens would require at least 300 people to operate. Depending on how reloading work, maybe more. For 24/7 defence, 3 shifts plus holiday cover, that’s maybe 1200 from a dwindling army bucket, costing Lord knows what in basic plus specialist training and more training again when we consider rotation.
Then there’s your quoted price for Sky Sabre which is what we paid for a tiny number of batteries, including UK Army introduction costs. If you just looked at the build cost for the elements, in the same way as you did for Raven, I’d expect you’d find it could be a lot cheaper too. Quantity reduces the price for the same reason. I believe the Poles did a deal for 22 batteries for £1.9bn, which I make as <£90m per battery, including spares, maintenance, etc.
I'm not saying that you couldn't get a bunch of Ravens for the cost of a Sky Sabre battery, of course you could, but not 100. You'd need a much better understanding of the cost breakdowns to get a real idea of how many.
Agreed, I did that a bit hastily.
But even 5-7 productionised Raven, with rationalised launch canisters and 4 missiles each, make a decent counterpart to a single CAMM battery in terms of protected area. Not equivalent in terms of Giraffe’s battlefield monitoring, of course, but for simply defending stuff and providing the bubble for an army to operate in, perfectly capable.
Four missiles each might be harder than you think, given the way they currently sit flat during transit, but I agree it has to be worth an investigation.
I thought about the possibility of making them Sky Sabre compatible, so that the SS’s Giraffe could direct them; then I wondered, given their fire and forget nature, how much you’d actually gain from this. If the ASRAAMs can’t lock on after launch with their line-of-sight IR sensors, they won’t work. So as long as the truck-mounted EO/IR is significantly better than the internal ASRAAM sensor, I don’t think you’d gain a lot by the addition of radar. You’d have better situational awareness and better C2 of course, but that’s nothing to do with the firing of a SHORAD system per se.
I think of these as closer to Rapiers in capability. We’d probably be better off working on shortening the reload time and looking into a cheaper base vehicle from Supacat than expanding capability at ever greater cost.
Relying here to avoid thread limit
The BVS10 manages to carry 4x non-folding IRIS-T on a narrower chassis than the HMT, but I don’t know how having canisters would affect that. I think by moving the central missiles together, there’d be room for more on the outside.
Like I said to Leh below, I wonder if you could fit actual CAMM and retain the EO sensor? That should be possible given how high the missiles are elevated at present, and would make SkySabre integration much easier along with datalink updates.
I hadn’t considered the mobility issue, it’s a very good point, particularly for an expeditionary force.
If you have a look at Think Defence’s “Vehicle transportability” page, you can fit 3 HMT in an A400 and 4 in a C17.
That’s a heck of a lot better than needing 3 separate flights just to generate the capability. But I don’t think any Supacat based vehicle is going to be a Sky Sabre replacement. Much better to have single units protecting airbases or strategic points, as well as extending SHORAD further forwards over the FLOT.
Incidentally, looking at how far the rails are elevated on Raven, I wonder if you might even be able to use CAMM and thus standardise further? 🤔
Maybe adapt the SkySabre launch vehicle to fire Asraam and even Meteor, all versions?
SkySabre already carries CAMM, so no need for ASRAAM, and any worthwhile surface Meteor would be too big for Ilauncher.
Really, we need a newer larger Ilauncher that will be able to carry the newer Aster flavours, as well as CAMM-MR.
Raven should not be compared to Sky Sabre, it would be better to compare it to Stormer. The War in Ukraine has shown that Stormer equipped with Starstreak HVM or Martlet is very good at knocking down jets, helicopters and drones. However, Russia has learned through “Darwinism” to attack from a distance that puts it outside the effective range of Starstreak and Martlet. Which has been clearly demonstrated by the Ka50/52s launch their ATGMs from 10 to 14km away. Which looking at some of their YouTube videos, is about maxing out the optics on the KA50/52.
Raven equipped with the surface launched ASRAAM could very neatly fill this gap. Though I believe Ukraine are predominantly using Raven to protect towns and cities. ASRAAM when surfaced launched has a lot more range than AIM-9, which is currently being used by NASAMs. It is fairly similar to CAMM, though doesn’t have the tail reaction jets.
If Starstreak/Martlet is maxed out in range, without any serious modifications, ASRAAM should be considered as an ideal candidate. As it could be used in the forward conflict areas, whereas Sky Sabre cannot. As the vehicle has to stop and then have the CAMM launchers raised to the vertical position. I am not certain if CAMM can be launched at a shallower angle, as I believe the software has only been written for a vertical launch, that then uses the reaction jets to point it towards the interception point. Raven/ASRAAM in this instance can be more reactive.
Another note with the 70% success rate is that it is in combat conditions where they are far more variables and so it isn’t just a question of kill probability. 70% doesn’t mean if a drone is flying straight toward you from 5km away, there is a 70% chance of hitting it. It’s probably well over 90% if not effectively guaranteed outside specific technical/mechanical issues.
That 30% of misses could include a hypersonic missile with advanced countermeasures, a jet aircraft that reached the edge of the engagement envelope then turned around when the missile was launched, or a drone that never even entered within the effective firing range. Meanwhile the 70% of hits could be exclusively against slow moving UAVs with it being useless against more advanced missiles, or more likely a broader mix.
Looking at things from the other end, if you’re a barely trained Russian pilot in a rattletrap of an badly maintained aircraft, the realisation that the two missiles approaching you at high speed have a 90+% chance of ruining your day must be pretty thought provoking and may well persuade you to not press your attack too hard.
There’s a few options for an ASRAAM type unit to very nicely supplement , whilst leaving the Sky Sabre units further back. The latest ASRAAM Block 6 is ITAR free and is currently in production I believe for the Royal Air Force, so there is an option for a ground based system using the newest Block missile.
– Germany is working on a Boxer module with four IRIS-T to provide close air defence, whilst also keeping their truck mounted IRIS-T SLM batteries reserved for forces further back. The UK could simply use this Boxer module with ASRAAM instead, ideally also keeping the nice retractable EO/IR sensor already in service in Ukraine. The passive nature of the HMT system was a nasty surprise apparently to Russian helicopters, plus other countries with systems like NASAMs also have a mast mounted passive sensor in addition to radars.
– If you want something other than a Boxer, Moog is offering a turret solution with eight LMMs, or Starstreak, or a mix of both, with also either a 30mm cannon with air-burst rounds on the HMT-600 chassis, or eight missiles and a 7.62mm machinegun option for the smaller Dingo 3 chassis: they showed it recently at IAV 2025. Maybe have Moog do a beefed up turret on those same vehicles but with four ASRAAMs instead?
– Or if you want to reuse the VAMTAC for logistics reasons, simply have it with two ASRAAMs in place of the four Martlet/Starstreak it currently has.
I would hope that someone has mentioned these options repeatedly to the Ministry of Defence, plus also the Army and Air Force! Anyone here have good military/political contacts to raise this? It wouldn’t be that hard to choose one or more of those options, especially for expeditionary air field defence on improvised bases, or for maneuver units very close to the front line where LMM/Starstreak may not have quite the reach for certain air threats.
I genuinely believe that DE&S is waking up to this now. Clearly a combination of factors, particularly the growing public pressure, the ongoing defence review (when o’ when will we see it!) and obviously the speed of procurement of novel cyber-era technologies in ongoing conflicts. Andy Start’s evidence to the Public Accounts Committee was credible, particularly considering the Spiral and Rapid procurement elements. I understand from colleagues in the organsiation that there is very much a mindset change or ‘war-footing’ approach. It needs to be met with organisational attitude change towards risk management, individual failures and accountability and rapid accountable financial scrutiny. George and the team did a good piece here on 29 Apr, but the PDF of the evidence is available via the House of Commons page and is well worth a read.
I don’t believe that there has been a deliberate degrading of military capability by successive governments. Rather a complacency based on Cold-War thinking, an over reliance on a Nuclear Deterrent and the Cousins and significant changes to risk-appetite which I believe is tied to our increasingly litigious attitude to public sector failure. It is a flawed mentality but also understandable as we have seen public interest and understanding (particularly from social media and the openess of commentary that did not exist even 15 years ago) increase exponentially. There was a great piece on Politics home a few weeks ago – which I will link separately – that talked about the 1000 correct decisions that have created the government red tape surrounding National Strategic Infrastructure. Broadly, that every regulation and restriction is put in place with the best intentions, for the correct reasons, but results in an unmanageable and criminally inefficient organisation.
Reform of DE&S needs to be at the centre of this defence review. It is the foundation of everything else in the military establishment.
I wonder if Australia have donated their now retired ASRAAM stocks….
Otherwise, if we have donated around 400 missiles, and this article states there have been 400 engagements, then they mustn’t have that many left!