A £550 million contract for new surface-attack missiles for the F-35 has been signed.

Known as SPEAR3, the next-generation missile can travel long distances at high-subsonic speed and over the next decade will become the F-35’s primary air-to-ground weapon.

At 1.8 metres long, the missile system has a range of more than 140-kilometres and, powered by a turbojet engine, can operate across land and sea, day or night, to overpower enemy air defence systems, while the pilot and aircraft remains a safe distance away. 

Its ability to attack moving targets will enhanc£550m contract signed for ‘mini cruise missiles’e the UK’s future combat air capability and provide immense lethal capability to the Queen Elizabeth class carrier strike group, say the Ministry of Defence.

Defence Minister Jeremy Quin said:

“The development of this next-generation missile will allow us to protect our personnel and assets on the ground, from thousands of metres in the sky above. Our commitment to this system will secure hundreds of highly skilled jobs across the UK and showcase British technology and weapon expertise on the world stage.”

Following a successful development phase, the new seven-year demonstration and manufacture contract with MBDA will support more than 700 UK jobs, including the creation of 190 highly skilled technology jobs in system design, guidance control and navigation and software engineering.

The Ministry of Defence say that at the peak of the contract, 570 people will work on various aspects of the system’s development in Bristol, Stevenage and Bolton. Another 200 jobs are expected to be sustained along the supply chain that includes L3/Harris, Roband, Collins, EPS and MSB.

George Allison
George Allison
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. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

117 COMMENTS

  1. Things definitely moving in the right direction WRT ‘Strike’ capabilities, if only Bk4 upgrade wasn’t coming in late and over budget! Still, can’t have too much of a good thing all at once!?

    • Eight internally, 4 in each weapons bay, with space still left over for 1 x Meteor on the inside of each of the weapon bay doors. Not sure about external.

      • I’m assuming 3 per hardpoint like the Typhoon, using the inner and middle hard points on each wing so up to 12 externally.

        • It might actually be 4 per hardpoint as the rack being used internally will be the BRU-61. Which would mean 24 Spear, 2 Asraam and 2 Meteor carried.

          Or it might be none externally at all…not seen any plans to carry SDBII or Spear externally yet.

          MBDA have a triple rack used for Brimstone that they could adapt, but they have also shown a Hexa-rack concept for use with the similar SmartGlider Light weapon. This is essentially 2 triple racks joined together. That could, theoretically, mean an external load of 24 Spear, with 8 more internal.

          But of all the options the BRU-61 is more likely to be cleared if anything as the US would do it for SDB1 and SDB2.

          https://www.cobhammissionsystems.com/weapons-carriage-and-release/air-to-ground-weapons-carriage-and-release-systems/air-to-ground-bomb-racks/bru-61a-datasheet/docview/

          • Interesting, I wonder why they won’t use this rack on the Typhoon? All info I’ve seen is 3 per hardpoint on the Typhoon.

          • Upon further reading I have found concept images from MBDA of Typhoon using the BRU-61 quad launcher on Typhoon so it’s certainly a possibility.

          • Personally I’m a little conflicted. We’re going to have to use the BRU-61 internally, but I would like to see a UK solution externally….problem is that the Hex launcher loaded would be a 1500lb store, which is marginal for some pylons. The triple makes sense for Brimstone, but if you can get a more aerodynamic BRU-61 for 4 Spear you’ll go with that.

  3. Groundbreaking…literally. If a single F35 can deliver up to four mini cruise, just imagine what that will do to enhance the F35 platform?

    • Make that 8 internally, plus it could carry more under the wings if stealth isn’t the priority. This weapon will be a game changer. And it has anti ship capability.

      • MBDA have a triple and a quad launcher that can be attached to a single underwing pylon in production. The Typhoon will be using a triple pack, whilst the F35B will use the quad pack. Weight is not an issue as the whole lot comes under 500kg. So far, I have only seen one quad pack fitted to a F35’s middle hardpoint in the blurb. The F35B has three hard points per wing, the inner hardpoint is rated at 5000lbs (2268kg), the middle at 1500lbs (680kg) and the outer at 300lbs (136kg). Theoretically speaking, the F35 should also be able to carry a quad pack on the inner hard point, thus giving a total of 24 missiles. It will be interesting to see if this an option when in “Beast Mode”!

        • 24 ? Considering the low level the UK tends to stockpile such weapons, if a major conflict were to erupt, how many days of conflict could the UK go before exhausting it’s entire supply ? LOL

          • Some things we do have big stockpiles of: Storm Shadow springs to mind @ about 1000 purchased.

            Other things we have puzzlingly few of: sub launches cruise missiles less than 100.

          • Just imagine a simultaneous cruise attack using Astute and F35! This new weapon could be the most significant system seen in decades?

          • The only problem with the sub launch cruise missles, you have to pick up the platform after launch, its about 100k per platform

          • I’d say that was a political decision. We ordered 1,000 to support UK industry and get some sort of economy of scale. Tomahwaks the US already has economy of scale so the UK basically bought the minimum it needed knowing it could just purchase them directly from us stock piles if it needed more.

          • The UK isn’t bad for stockpiles. But Spear is a break in weapon in the main. Paveway IV and Brimstone from Typhoon are the main munitions after that phase.

            But….the UK could really do with some really cheap guided munitions, in the JDAM and SDB1 class. Both of those are around $25k. PWIV and Brimstone are 4x that…

  4. Spear 3 looks like yet another great missile from MBDA. I do hope that VLS Spear 3 sees the light of day sometime. A few years ago MBDA showed some concept drawings ,and even a model at one show I think (but I could be wrong about that), of a cold-launch VLS version – basically Spear 3 with a booster attached and I assume needing more of a CAMM-ER sized cannister than a regular Sea Ceptor sized cannister to accommodate what would probably be a higher mass and bigger diameter.

    • Hi Julian,

      MBDA have carried out a number of test firings of surface to surface Brimstone derived weapons. One of the variants according to Wikipedia is called Brimstone Sea Spear. As far as I can tell these weapons are Brimstones i.e. without the wings (the wiki page is not clear).

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)

      I have also seen a 2015 report from ThinkDefence.co.uk showing an artist’s impression of quad packed Spear 3 launching from Mk41 VLS. From other articles (one on the MBDA site which I cannot find now) it appears CAMM, CAMM ER and Spear 3 can all be quad packed into Mk41 and Sylver VLS. The Sea Ceptor VLS is a specialist single round VLS for CAMM missiles as far as I can work out.

      https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/11/ground-and-sea-launched-spear-3/

      No idea if the RN is going to buy surface launched Spear 3 – I hope they do – but I think to make the most of it they would need to commit to a standard VLS that can take quad packed weapons. Think of T31 equipped with just 12 Sylver VLS, 4 quad packed with (16x) Spear 3 and 8 quad packed with (x32) CAMM or CAMM ER…

      Cheers CR

    • You definitely have something there. MBDA had a presentation at DSEI in 2019 that showed a ground launched multi-cell version (32 cells) of Brimstone. This was fired from the back of a 8×8 MAN truck. Later in the same demo they had a computer animation of Spear 3, that also showed it being fired from the same type of 8×8 truck (I think it was 16 cells from memory). In the demo, the SPEAR 3 containers were raised to 45 degrees and then fired, They were fixed, so could not slew in a preferred target’s direction. The major point they were trying to get across was not only the range, but also the loitering capability.

      The problem I foresee for the Navy is, where does it fit in the inventory? Currently they have Martlet and Sea Venom for the Wildcats. Hopefully within a couple of years the interim anti-ship missile followed by the future anti-ship missile on 2030. Then there’s sub-launched Tomahawk.

      So we have:

      1. Martlet with a range of about 8km for use against small fast attack boats and slow-ish UAVs/aircraft.
      2. Sea Venom with a range of around 20km for use against corvettes and smaller vessels. It can also be used against fixed land targets.
      3. Tomahawk (TLAM) block 4 has a range over 1000km. It is predominantly used for land targets. However, the block 4 also introduces a passive radar, a two way data-link and other improvements. This means the missile can loiter over the target area and feed back some targeting information. It also allows the missile to home-in on a ship’s radar, thereby giving it a limited anti-ship capability.

      So looking at the current list, there is a yawning gap in capability for a medium range weapon. Today’s stringent requirements and cost reduction, would be for a multi-role weapon rather than a singular use weapon. One that can equally be used against both land and sea targets. The interim missile, is I feel likely to be the Kongsberg NSM/JSM. The reason for this is that other countries (Australia, Japan and Norway) are paying for the integration on F35 and Poseidon, so we won’t have to! It makes more sense to use the same weapon that the aircraft are using as the ship based weapon requirement. Unfortunately, on a F35B it has to be fitted under the wings, as the bomb bays aren’t deep enough. Having a multi-use weapon cuts down massively on upfront costs. The NSM/JSM is currently only cannister launched, which are slightly smaller than the Harpoon cannisters, but have a similar footprint.

      The NSM/JSM has a published range of 185 to 555km depending on the flight profile and the launch platform. It also has a 125kg multi-effects shaped charge warhead, so can be used against both land and sea targets. There’s a commitment by Norway to have it Mk41 VLS compatible. Perhaps more importantly, it conforms to the UK’s rules of engagement, as it uses a imaging infrared seeker coupled with a two-way data-link. This means the target can be positively identified and is less easily decoyed compared to a radar guided missile. The missile is subsonic and uses a combination of shaping and radar absorbent materials (RAM) to lower its radar cross section (RCS) for a stealthy approach.

      Spear 3 is also going to be integrated on F35 as part of the next software enhancement (Block 4). It is one of the key weapons for RAF directed air power for the next 20 years. Again it is a multi-use weapon. Where initially it was designed to counter local air defences, like Brimstone its capabilities have massively expanded. It relies on its small size for RCS reduction. Using a development of the Brimstone mmW radar combined with a laser target seeker, it can produce a near photographic quality image of its target, which can be fed back to the operator via a two way data-link. It has a similar programmable multi-effect shaped warhead, so it can equally be used against tanks or targeting combatants through windows. But equally it can be used against ships. Granted, its warhead being quite small wont sink a ship. It will however achieve a mission kill, by targeting selected points on a ship, such as the bridge, radar, weapons magazine etc. Another ace up its sleeve is the Electronic Warfare (EW) version of the missile. This takes a similar digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) jammer that is used in Leonardo’s Britecloud and mounts it in the missile. The jammer has the capability of replicating and spoofing most radars. Therefore, when used as part of strike package. it means there is a much greater chance of the weapons being delivered, even against modern air defence systems.

      It’s quite a conundrum. On one hand NSM is a ship killer and can be used against some land targets. Whilst Spear 3 is a true multi-use weapon that has the ability to knock out a ship. To me it is blatantly obvious, the two compliment each other. For example: An anti-ship strike by a F35 package launched from a QE class carrier. If we consider a four plane strike package, that is being sent against a very high tier task group, sheparded by a air defence destroyer. It could be loaded out with a combination of NSM, Spear 3 and Spear 3 EW. The F35 can carry 8 Spear 3 internally with another 8 under the wings (total of 16 per aircraft) or instead a pair of NSMs under the wings.

      If you think about this tactically, even with missiles under the wings, the F35s will detect the task group a long time before they are detected, especially if their radars are active. There are various options where the F35s can stay at medium to high altitude flying parallel to the task group maintaining stealth. Launch a swarm of 64 Spears 3 missiles, hopefully overwhelming the defences. It could have a package of normal Spear 3s mixed with the EW version, approaching from sea skimming height, activating their jammers as soon as the ships come into view, thus making it harder to get a lock on the actual missile threat. Perhaps the biggest threat would be a mix of all three (Spear 3, Spear 3 EW and NSM). The active jammer would help to hide the standard Spear 3s whilst the NSM which is designed for stealth, so may not even be seen until its too late!

      I think we will get NSM/JSM for the F35s. If the integration is already paid for on both Poseidon and F35s, we have everything to gain also incorporating it on our ships. Thus giving them a very useful and versatile missile. Combined with Spear 3. It will give a number of options and perhaps a significant advantage in dealing with high tier threats. As much as I’ve said it will give an advantage for the F35, it would also be a winning combination for a ship. Having either a swarm of Spear 3s launched by a ship, or having a Spear 3 EW flying in concert with a NSM/JSM against a targeted ship. Would significantly increase the chances of a successful strike.

      A vertical launched version would be the ideal for a ship. If they can quad pack ESSM into one Mk41 cell. The Spear 3 which is smaller in diameter can also be quad packed. There is an image in Think Defence, that shows a quad packed VLS cell firing a Spear 3 – see link below. So it definitely has been thought about, perhaps even studied!

      SPEAR Capability 3 – Think Defence

      • Good roll up on the possible options Davey. Combining SPEAR3 armed/EW variants and NSM/JSM, perhaps even adding a supersonic FC/ASW variant, all timed to arrive simultaneously, could be extremely difficult to counter. Was the SPEAR3 MAN 8×8 truck launch presentation showing a hot or cold launch, because I’ve wondered if a cold launch version is viable for ship use.

        BTW I hadn’t seen confirmation of JSM qualification being funded for Poseidon, do you have a link on that? It makes military sense for those with both F-35 and P8, but I wondered about commercial costs of doing so and who would pay.

        • At present the P8s that Norway and Australia have as well as the other users, use harpoon as the anti-ship weapon.The P8s we are getting will also use Harpoon. However, both Countries MoDs expressed an interest to replace it with JSM. As this is the weapon that is used by the Norwegian Navy (NSM version) and JSM will be integrated on the F35 on the next Block 4 upgrade. Australia have integrated on their F18s and will also have it on their F35s. They have also paid BAe to integrate a passive radar receiver in the JSM to augment the IIR seeker. Japan have paid Kongsberg to do a study of repackaging JSM so that it could fit internally in a F35B. I don’t think this will go anywhere, as something will have to give if it’s to fit in the shallower bomb bay of the F35B.

          The US is going to integrate the LRASM within the next few years, along with JDAM and SDM. They also planning on integrating aerial delivered mines.

          Unfortunately there is no direct correspondence stating that P8 will get JSM. Except for inferences from both Kongsberg, Raytheon and respective Countries MoDs in press releases. Both Nations have stated they see very little point of having two weapon systems doing the same job. As they say there’s no smoke without a fire. I guess we will have to wait and see.

          • Thanks for the explanation. I understand Australia has also ordered LRASM, presumably to complement JSM with a longer range and much larger warhead solution. My thinking is that they may stick with just LRASM for P8 since it avoids them paying for integration and the longer range keeps the aircraft further away from ship defences.

      • Just discovered that the RN is modding the Sea Ceptor Software package to give it an Anti Surface capability. That means that a T23 will have the ability to reach out to 25+Km against surface targets.

        • That is excellent news, I hadn’t seen that before! The debate about clearing them for quad packing in VLS then begins I suppose, if they become multi-role. My understanding is that it’s feasible to do, but it hasn’t been officially qualified yet?
          I guess that means that Land Ceptor will also be capable of delivering an indirect precision fires role too- although they’re not getting them in large numbers from my understanding.

          • Hi Joe,

            With such a limited purchase of land ceptor, it will probably only be able to defend divisional and or brigade HQ.

            If you want precision fires, we could simply get the surface launched brimstone, like the one MBDA marketed at the Polish army.

            24 missiles on a single vehicle (odd that the precision. Fires version of the boxer only has 8)

          • Thanks Bob, I feared as much…
            I suppose a larger buy would make it more deployable, and there might be some beenfit in common platforms in terms of cost savings and stuff.
            I do like that Brimstone launcher though, cool bit of kit! 24 missiles seems like a lot, especially compared with the larger Boxer- does that include reloads, or are they all good to go? I wonder about the range though, I think it would be shorter than 20 km but I may well be wrong. Might it be better to go for a 120 mm mortar system for the short stuff, coupled with javelin teams, then get a larger missile to fill in around 155 mm tubes and MRLS? I’m no expeert though, so I may have all the range brackets wrong in my head…

          • Joe, I think brimstone range is quoted as 60km from typhoon and 40km from helicopters. I have struggled to find and quoted range for surface launched version or its marine derivative sea spear, so 25km is just a hypothesis.

            the drawings shown by Mbda had 1, 2 or 3 8-brimstone pods on the polish BMPs. I believe they are all ready to fire.

            Nicholas Drummond has just tweeted an image of boxer with a 12-cell MLRS system, so I assume the boxer can be fitted with a lot more than 8 brimstone.

          • Wow, that’s a lot further than I expected! Hellfire is about 12 km, which I assume is measured from launch from an Apache. Given the 2 quoted ranges, 25 km doesn’t sound unreasonable to me- so I’ll withdraw my concern about range.
            That’s cool, quite a barrage to launch 12 in short order, without a reload.
            You’d think so, I liked Nicholas’ latest buildout of an ideal Strike brigade, he seems to have changed his thinking quite significantly compared to previous stuff he’s put out about Strike. Not a bad thing, I think he’s on the right track. The question will be if the army can get it sorted or not- there is a lot of institutional inertia that seems to slow down or mess with modernisation and keeing themselves efficient.

          • Hi RB1,

            If not brimstone/spear3, what were mbda proposing, or was is a potential future missile. Spike NLOS might be an alternative, but the UK has invested in brimstone development, so I believe its use should be maximised.

            If we only by brimstone in limited stocks, it does not encourage other nations to purchase it.

          • Future missile. Essentially a mash-up of CAMM and Brimstone. Soft launch as well. It was of an increased calbre as well (wider than CAMM). 2 seeker heads were shown; A Dual Mode Brimstone Head and an Electro-Optical Head.

            Lots of interesting potential….

            1) – Spike NLOS replacement – Probably cheaper, faster, much larger range (60km vs.25km) bigger warhead. UK built. No political issues around use/deployment. Could be added as the image suggested as a module on Boxer. The offensive capability of Strike Brigades enhanced enormously very easily. Replaces the poor trailer mounted Spike NLOS (that by all accounts isn’t successful or suitable for peer-to-peer war).
            2) – Anti-Armour Overwatch – A Super-Swingfire replacement. No MBT on earth could defend against a Mach 2-3 missile coming in near vertically, it wouldn’t even need a warhead, Kinetic Energy alone would tear through a tanks top armour. A modern diving LOSAT. The speed of response would mean it could operate at much further range than Swingfire could and cover multiple units. Probably easiest to leave on Boxer and MAN chassis than add on to Ajax.
            3) – F-35 Outer Pylon compatible – Brimstone 2/3 will never be integrated, but Asraam has (and Asraam CSP will). The combination of the Asraam form factor and Brimstone seeker (as used on Spear which will be integrated) would allow a very straightforward integration to F-35. Very easily you give F-35B a cheaper, faster Spear capability but in 2 forms – Dual Mode and E/O. The Dual Mode would be very useful as a SEAD/DEAD weapon for fast response/pop up targets. The E/O capability is a new one to the F-35.
            4) – Compatibility with Land Ceptor launchers.
            5) – Compatibility with Sea Ceptor launchers – A big advantage. Any RN vessel (including T26, T31, and you would hope QE eventually) would have the capability of carrying an easy to integrate missile that can deal with Fast Attack Craft in any weather conditions or provide precision strike out to 60km. This would be a whole lot easier than integration a Spear missile which would require a new booster and tip over mechanism.
            6) – Export sales – New Zealand, Italy, Brazil and Chile are CAMM users… Plus India and Australia are Asraam users. As a solution to anti-air, anti-missile, precision strike, anti-FAC it’s pretty much unique.
            7) – Typhoon compatible – Another string to its bow. Not sure if the air to ground aspect could be easily ported to Tranche 1’s though, be interesting if it could be.
            8) – Falklands – There’s no real credible threat there. But sending a few down south to be launched from the Land Ceptor battery would be a useful capability for the defence forces to have.
            9) – UK Land Forces get a small anti-ship missile by default.
            10) – UK Industry benefits – No ITAR issues.
            11) – Could be quad packed in Sylver or Mk.41/57 launchers. Or canisters can be a standalone component, you just need a rack for them.
            12) – CAMM, CAMM-ER, CAMM with E/O, CAMM with DMB head…that’s a very convincing selection of weapons for any platform to be able to fire. SAM from 200 metres to c80km, strike out to 60km. I don’t particularly favour it but a cold launched Spear with a booster for when it clears the capsule could strike out to 150km as well, if it was lengthened with increased fuel storage to take advantage of the additional space in the canister it could go out to c250km…

            This is exactly what the Complex Weapons Team initiative was about. Developing capabilities that could be ported between different systems, maximising development and sustainment funds whilst delivering greater capability.

          • That’s a very good and comprehensive description of the development potential of the MBDA’s CAMM airframe. Though you did miss one out. How about a CAMM-EW? Using the same Britecloud derived DRFM jammer that’s fitted to Spear-EW. It would give another option to attacking a target.

            The imaging infrared (IIR) seeker currently used by ASRAAM gives a very good contrast definition, so much so that a still image has near 720P or better picture quality. It is one of the reasons why multi-frequency flares have trouble decoying ASRAAM. The seeker is soon to be upgraded with an even higher resolution version. So perhaps ASRAAM will also get a dedicated air to ground mode, due to the improved seeker?

            If you are using a full length Mk41 or Sylver VLS to house a Spear 3. Just like ESSM there’s room to quad pack them. The additional length could be used for a larger and more sustained rocket booster. Rather than lobbing it up 30m or so, then activating the tip-over jets to point in the right direction. My thoughts would be to launch it ballistically and give the missile a high-low attack profile. The booster would stay attached for a good 10 seconds, allowing the missile to punch to a much higher altitude. By putting the missile on a more efficient ballistic path not only reduces the time to the target but will also increases the effective range. The missile could do the ballistic part with the main wings folded, thus reducing drag. During the ballistic regime the turbojet would not be activated, thus conserving fuel. When falling to a lower pre-set height for the low level approach, the main wings would pop out and the turbojet activated. This would I think significantly increase the missile’s range and loiter duration.

          • Thanks RB1 for a great summary of the potential we could get from mbda

            I also read that the proposed missile would have the same diameter as brimstone/spear and therefore bigger than camm. Would it therefore be an issue fitting it in camm launchers.

          • Yes it does have a larger calibre. 180mm vs 166mm. Shouldn’t be a problem fitting in the canister as CAMM-ER has a similar diameter in its mid section. They may need to have pop-out fins rather than folding though.

            The diameter of it is actualy really encouraging, it means they won’t have to re-package the Brimstone seeker head (which would cost serious money). I suspect it will have a lower impulse rocket engine than CAMM as well. The focus will be on range rather than outright speed. As a result 60km range could be lower than reality…

          • That all sounds reassuring. I guess we have to just wait and see if there is a will to fund the development.

        • I guess that kinda makes sense as the target will likely be within visual range, so can be properly identified. Still need something for over the horizon stuff though.

        • I think this will be most impactful to the Type 31s, having a genuine anti-ship capability which doesn’t rely on a Wildcat.

          Are you aware if Sea Ceptor is already capable of anti-surface or will it come at a later date? We are yet to see it tested.

        • That will make a very nasty surprise for any small craft swarm in the gulf.

          It would be good for the type 31 as well, it’s ability to manage swarm attacks will be quite robust considering it’s a constabulary vessel .

      • Agree pretty broadly with you there- I think there is a place for Spear 3 in the midst of Martlet, sea Venom, I-ASW and FCASW on the Navy side, and Paveway (?), Brimstone and Storm Shadow/FCASW on the RAF side. If we really wanted to, it could even fit in with army via the launch systems you mention- but that may be too far down the joined up thinking route for the MOD…! I’d imagine that Martlet may have a place on AAC Wildcat too, but maybe I’m getting a bit carried away there (especially as I think the AAC should give all their Wildcat to the RN and up their buy of UAVs and AH-64E).
        The only thing I would say is that I lean towards selecting Harpoon Block II+ as the interrim weapon; it will be a cheaper, simple upgrade rather than new buy, is already cleared for our surface vessels and P-8A, and has both land attack and anti-ship capability. It loses out to NSM/JSM when it comes to low RCS, and it’s not cleared on F-35B (yet?), but we’re spending big on a lot of stuff and I think the cost/capability balance will be won by harpoon on this one.
        I wouldn’t worry so much about cannister launch either, pretty much all NATO vessels only carry cannister launched ASMs- it’s only with the new SM-6 and maybe the LRASM (still not qualified for Mk-41 as far as I’m aware) that Burkes will have a VLS-launched surface weapon system. Some of them don’t even carry the twin 4-packs of Harpoon at the moment.

      • Great summary. Thanks Davey.

        On the shipborne VLS possibility, like you I also wondered about the dreadful dilemma it could give an enemy ship if a combination of a relatively high number of precision-targeted mission/system kill Spear 3 were incoming at the same time as a smaller number of potentially ship-sinking NSM/JSM in terms of saturating defences and potentially needing to be selective in which incoming missiles to attempt to intercept. I note also that SPEAR 3 already has the ability for a cluster of missiles to communicate amongst themselves to coordinate coincident impacts on multiple targets e.g. a line of tanks or a convoy of trucks. That feature could also be very useful in optimally saturating a ship’s defences.

        My other thought though was specifically related to the characterisation in the headline as ‘mini cruise missiles’ and what options that might give vessels such as T31 to perform additional ground support roles. One big question mark for such roles would be what sort of range a VLS-launched Spear 3 would have vs an air-launched one. The range that Wikipedia quotes, which I’m guessing might be conservative, is 130-140km but of course that’s with the air-launch platform already imparting significant forward velocity to the missile at time of release and also at least some altitude which the missile can use to glide further. Essentially the missile is being imparted with worthwhile amounts of both kinetic and potential energy to use in reaching its target before it even ignites its own propulsion whereas a VLS-launched missiles starts with effectively zero kinetic and potential energy. The counterbalance of course is that a VLS-launched Spear 3 would I assume have a booster strapped to the back of it. It would be really interesting to see whether that could maintain or even extend the range vs the current air-launched version.

        The answer to that question depends I would think on just how big the booster could be. I think the MBDA VLS concept was from a soft-launch silo and that would seem to me to be a huge bonus if that was a design factor since something like T31 currently envisaged to only have soft-launch (Sea Ceptor) silos could carry it. I am also hoping, possibly forlornly, that whatever soft launch silo technology the UK does adopt for T31 and T26 will be sized such that it could host CAMM-ER in the future were the UK to want to introduce that at some point. If my hope came true then one could reasonably target the Spear 3 + booster package to fit within the CAMM-ER cannister size and weight limits. If I don’t get my wish then I’m not sure a regular Sea Ceptor soft launch could house a VLS Spear 3 due to the weight since regular Spear 3 is already about the same weight as Sea Ceptor (each about 100kg) so although there would be plenty of extra length in a CAMM cannister for a booster I worry whether the soft launch system would be able to throw the added weight up into the air to clear the launch cannister. The diameters are also a bit of a concern

        If however a CAMM-ER envelope is used (all the following is Wikipedia data) basic Spear 3 is <100kg, 1.8m long and 18cm diameter whereas CAMM-ER is quoted as 160kg, 4.0m long and 19cm diameter so that would leave a minimum of about 60kg weight and 2.2m length for a booster. One might even be able to re-use a lot of the physical (chassis) design of the CAMM-ER booster although I suspect one would want to use totally different propulsion technology since a VLS Spear 3 would want to optimise range above speed so less thrust sustained for longer vs CAMM-ER’s booster..

        If such a weapon could be created with at least 150km range, even better if the booster could get that out to more like 250km or greater, and be carried by anything that has Sea Ceptor silos that would be a very useful asset for ground teams to be able to call in for fixed or somewhat fleeting targets of interest when a drone wasn’t available but a ship was. (I say “somewhat fleeting” because if such a missile did have a 250km range then flight time to target precludes moving vehicles.) It also gives extra low cost options for “shock and awe” type day one attacks for smaller targets that don’t need Tomahawk and without needing to commit an aircraft to get the Spear onto target presumably leaving the F-35s etc free to engage additional targets.

        • It’s a valid point, especially as Gunbuster has said the SeaCeptor will be getting a surface attack mode in the next update. Will this also be carried over to CAMM-ER? The Italians Navy is the launch customer for the ER version. The ER version uses the same active RF seeker as SeaCeptor, so in theory everything should work with a few software tweeks to take into account of the ER’s additional mass.

          The issue I have is that for say a T31 with possibly only 12 SeaCeptors, using any for attacking a small vessel of land target will leave your air defence response depleted. Not forgetting the new norm for anti-ship missile attacks is to send a coordinated strike of a handful of missiles to have a greater chance of getting past the ship’s defences. Can a SeaCeptor cold launch system be replenished at sea?

          The animation I watched at DSEI showed a MAN truck raising its Spear 3 canister and firing off a missile. The missile was sent towards a possible threat location where it loitered. In the animation there was a ground team illuminating a vehicle target with a laser designator, which the Spear 3 homed in on. The animation showed the missile being hot launched.

          The blurb on CAMM-ER suggests it retains the cold launch of the lighter SeaCeptor. If that is the case then lobbing a Spear 3 plus booster is still feasible, as they’d be comparable weights. The SeaCeptor is launched into the air by CO2 if memory serves. Once it reaches 30m the azimuth jets fire to point in the general direction then the rocket engine is ignited.

          I am going to use the Kongsberg NSM as an example. It has multiple fight profiles that can be used to attack a target. These profiles affect the maximum range. The blurb states that a low level profile gives the missile a 185km range, whereas a high level profile it increases to over 500km. This is because there’s obviously less air resistance at a higher altitude, so less fuel is used for a given speed. Whereas, at very low level it has to burn more fuel as it fights its way through thicker air. I’d imagine Spear 3 will be no different. MBDA have stated that it has a range of over 100km. But they haven’t said from what height, using what profile or even if this is the range launched from an aircraft at X speed. The actual envelope of the missile’s parameters will be a closely guarded secret much like any system.

          What a ship based Spear 3 will give you is lots of options, especially if you are also carrying the Spear-EW. It really is a multi-role missile system developed on the foundations of Brimstone. A Type 31, with a cold launch cell of Spear 3s, would be an absolute nightmare for a opponent to counter. It would make the ship a lot more “fighty” and less of a gun boat with limited use.

          • Thanks Davey for some great explanations of what is out there.

            Like you, with limited numbers of sea ceptor on T31, I would have concern for using it for both air and sea defence.

            Do you know if the RN ever considered the Sea Spear from MBDA. Sea brimstone might be a more appropriate name though.

            It would have a similar range to sea ceptor, a 19kg warhead and has a very compact launcher.

            https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/brimstone-sea-spear/

          • Sea Ceptor is no where near being suited to surface attack. Simply put its designed as a small SAM , and doesn’t have anything like the size of warhead needed to be remotely effective.

          • Depends what the goals are for its use. It would make a mess of small FIAC craft and personnel. Its cold launch method makes it ideal as a CIWS missile against surface craft.

            It won’t sink larger boats and ships but it can destroy sensors and bridge structure, taking vessels out of the fight.

          • Any ASM missile we use must posess the ability to create enough damage to severely hamper any attacking vessels offensive capability. Its unlikely Sea Ceptor could achieve that, and it shouldn’t need to. We should ensure our ships are fitted with a decent purpose built ASM that can such as LRASM.

          • Horses for courses. We, together with the French, are developing FC/ASW which should be able to take on any vessel. But FC/ASW is going to be a multi-million pound missile, we wouldn’t want to use that against a speedboat. Both because of the disproportionate ratio of missile cost to threat and because we would never have the numbers of such a missile to counter the potential numbers of FIAC in a swarm attack.

            BTW LRASM hasn’t been qualified by anyone yet for surface launch, its still a hypothetical solution in that context. It may never be qualified in that role as AGM-158C is supposed to only be an UOR solution before the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW)/Increment 2 program.

            It remains to be seen what the MoD decide about the interim ASM solution; i.e. what if anything they chose and whether it continues in inventory beyond introduction of FC/ASW. For example, NSM for I-SSGW might be ~$2M each (based on a USN budget for 18 for LCS OTH use), so probably a similar order of unit cost to FC/ASW.

          • It remains to be seen if FC/ASW ever actually becomes a reality? It has yet to become anything more than an a proposal so far. LRASM can launched from VLS or cannister and is available now. As for trying to launch Sea Ceptor against a swarming boat attack, radar controlled guns are far more effective.

          • Sure the FC/ASW program could crash and burn. It is more than a proposal though, per link below which includes timeline. At this point, subject to COVID delays, we are at the end of the concept refinement stage.

            LRASM is only qualified as an air-launch missile today, so its “now” availability is for US aircraft only at this point. Specifically it is qual’d for F-18E/F and B-1B and in process for P8. Lockheed has test launched from canister and MK41 a long time ago and committed their own funds to developing surface launch, but the USN has not adopted it for surface launch to date.

            Sea Ceptor will far out range radar controlled guns and provide overlapping capability within gun range.

            https://www.mbda-systems.com/press-releases/anglo-french-fc-asw-missile-programme-successfully-passes-its-key-review/

          • Oops. A bit late on coming back on this but you (Davey & Bob) are 100% right to point out the elephant in the room re my previous post namely the absurdly low number of Sea Ceptor launchers proposed for T31. I confess that when I mentioned T31 I had sort of skipped ahead and was assuming my “trifecta” of Sea Ceptor initiatives were being implemented where I’ve mentioned the first two: 1 – whatever Sea Ceptor launcher the RN adopts to be sized to host not just CAMM but also CAMM-ER cannisters for future flexibility and 2 – develop a VLS Spear 3 within the CAMM-ER cannister size/weight envelope.

            The third in my trifecta is maybe the main one. I think the RN really has something with CAMM that can help it get a lot more out of its limited budget due to the reduced cost and complexity of cold launch vs hot launch but with such a solid building block I really wish that the MoD would double down on that to get the most out of it and here my third big wish is that the UK would develop a higher density modular launch silo optimised specifically for CAMM/CAMM-ER. Basically something like Stanflex but I would hope much simpler because Stanflex is designed to be able to accommodate all sorts of stuff including guns, torpedoes & hot-launch missiles. Since such a module would be custom designed for CAMM/CAMM-ER cannisters I would hope it could give pretty high packing density.

            How could the RN use such a module? Well, first if the midships and aft Sea Ceptor silos for the RN T26 were implemented using such modules and on the assumption that at any given time a minimum of 2 x T26 would be undergoing a level of maintenance that required munitions to be offloaded that means that at any point in time 4 modules (2 from each T26) would be uninstalled and potentially available for up to 4 deployed T31s without actually needing to buy any extra launch silos for T31, only installing the receivers in each hull.

            Even if the packing density for such a custom silo (number of launch tubes for a given deck area) couldn’t be increased beyond that already planned for the fixed T26 silos that already bumps T31 from 12 to 24 Sea Ceptors but if, by optimising the silo design 100% for CAMM/CAMM-ER cannisters, the allocated T26 deck space could actually host say 32 CAMM/CAMM-ER in a single module it increases not only T31 load-out to a quite respectable 32 Sea Ceptor but also boosts T26 Sea Ceptor load out from 48 to 64 Sea Ceptor. That then (in my view) makes hosting some VLS Spear 3 on T31 practical but also, were the UK to ever buy into the Italian CAMM-ER initiative, adds the ability for both classes to use CAMM-ER to provide wider area AAW capability. That’s a genuine addition to T31 capability and for T26 gives the ability to use the Sea Ceptor silos for some CAMM-ER without having to dedicate any Mk41 for that (which it probably wouldn’t do anyway since, unless it was quad-packing CAMM-ER in a Mk41 it would mean adopting SM which just isn’t the path the RN has chosen so in a way it’s a genuine addition to T26 capability as well).

            The next potential benefit could be T45. There’s obviously been much discussion about installing Mk41 in the space allocated but I think many accept that for cost reasons that is unlikely to happen. Also, for a dedicated AAW platform just what would we put in a Mk41 silo given that our primary AAW technology is Slyver/Aster with more local AAW being Sea Ceptor? If however the UK did develop an efficient cost-optimised CAMM/CAMM-ER modular silo that would presumably be much cheaper to install receivers for those in T45 and probably only needing to add maybe 3 extra modules themselves to the inventory in order to add 24 or more CAMM/CAMM-ER to a T45 giving more capacity for saturation attack and also potentially freeing up Sylver silo slots for future ABM capability.

            And finally such a modular CAMM/CAMM-ER silo could even open up the opportunity for a receiver on certain RFA vessels with probably Bay Class or their successors being the most obvious candidates. There the role would not be AAW, the radar, CMS and embarked personnel aren’t suitable for that I assume, but since one role of Bay is amphibious assault it could be very useful to have the ability to host VLS Spear 3 with ground troops and/or drones doing GPS or laser-designated targeting and due to the modular nature of the silos there’s little sunk cost when recognising the fact that a Bay would almost never actually install such a module in humanitarian or policing roles since all that is required is the receiver and for the Bays probably modular control electronics such such a capability would (hopefully) be very rarely used.

            Were the UK to ever implement my trifecta of CAMM/CAMM-ER initiatives (well, maybe it’s actually 4 initiatives if you add the UK also buying into the Italian CAMM-ER program) I think that could add a huge amount of capability and flexibility across T26, T31, T45, maybe certain RFA vessels, and presumably also T32 at relatively modest incremental cost especially when one factors in the savings from being able to allocate modules removed from ships in maintenance to ships on deployment.

          • Julian, I like the idea of your Trifecta. Though the idea of a role fit SAM system for a ship is new. I think Gunbuster can back me up here? But there was a lightweight Sea Wolf system, that was designed to be fitted to the RFAs. Not sure why it didn’t happen, probably down to saving money.

            The idea of Staniflex is valid I think. But I would probably base it on the Quadcon small intermodal container (ISO) that measures 4′ 9 3/8″ (1457mm) long x 8′ (2438mm) high x 8′ (2438mm) wide. If the container was based on a double stacked Quadcon in height, i.e. 16ft height, it would hold both CAMM and CAMM-ER cold launch canister lengths. This container would hold 28 CAMM or the wider CAMM-ER canisters with sufficient inter-canister spacing for wiring etc. (Figures based on published canister specifications)

            If we were talking Spear 3, it has a 10mm smaller diameter than CAMM-ER, but weighs 1kg more than SeaCeptor. So again the container could hold 28 missiles + rocket boosters, using the cold launcher canister of CAMM-ER.

            This would truly be a plug and play system. The host ship wouldn’t even need a fire control system or a radar, so long as it was sheparded by a T23, 26, 31, 45 or carrier with the container was electrically powered and hooked up to a two-way data-link. A 3rd party ship can do all the searching and tracking. Although it would be preferable for the host ship to do its own searching and tracking.

            By using the relatively small footprint size of 3.58m squared using a double stacked Quadcon. You can scale up the number of missiles a ship hosts quite easily. Now finding a means of lashing it down and securing it to the area between the main mast and funnel on a Type 31 is someone else’s problem!

          • Glad to hear that on initial inspection my ideas aren’t totally idiotic. I make a periodic disclaimer here that, although I have a scientific background via both physics and comp sci degrees, I am most definitely not an expert in military matters and have no practical experience whatsoever of applying such technologies in a military environment so offer all suggestions and comments on this forum most humbly and in the spirit of potentially being told what I’m missing and/or don’t understand to help me plug gaps in my knowledge rather than thinking I have out-thought the experts although if I occasionally do come up with any cogent thoughts (that I am sure experts have already thought of already but not pursued due to budget/political/other issues) then that’s good.

            On the SAM role fit, particularly the previous RFA Sea Wolf stuff you mentioned, the complication I see there (and again caveating this with my 100% acknowledgement of my lay-person status) is that for SAM one presumably needs extra stuff on board such as sufficiently good radar to get a missile with a fully active seeker close enough for the target to be within the acquisition basket or even worse for a semi-active seeker the launch ship presumably needs to be able to illuminate the target if it’s not to rely on others to do that. That’s why in my parting shot when I suggested fits onto the Bays I was careful to specifically mention it as being for my (mythical!) VLS Spear 3 use since those would presumably only need GPS target coordinates downloaded at launch, possibly over-ridden closer to the target by laser designation from drone or ground forces, so relatively modest additional systems and expertise needed onboard to enable the launches. For the T26/T31, and maybe even T45 and T32, those classes would already have the necessary higher-end radar, CMS stations and appropriate expertise on board for the SAM role in addition to the potential VLS Spear 3 “mini cruise missile” role.

          • A good forum is judged by the the interaction of those taking part, but also by having an informed discussion, where the participants can have a debate without judgement.

            Your Trifecta proposal is I think valid, as it could deliver not only a balanced deterrent but also a means of easy expansion, if the cack should hit the fan anytime soon.

            However, I would look at basing a staniflex system around the Quadcon mini ISO container. The Quadcom II measures 4′ 9 3/8″ (1291mm) x 8′ (2438mm) high x 8′ (2348mm) wide giving a footprint of 3148mm squared). If the Quadcon was double stacked it would have an overall height of 16′ (4876mm). This height is enough to hold the CAMM-ER cold launch container which is 14′ (4400mm). This smallish container would hold at a squeeze an additional 28 CAMM-ER or CAMM, with enough space to route wiring plus a bit of kevlar armour or more comfortably 21 missiles plus lot more kevlar armour.

            By plugging the Quadcom into the host ship’s power and with a built in datalink, would mean that it is truly a plug and play system. The host vessel does not need a combat management system or a dedicated search radar. As long as it is shepherded by a T23, 26, 31, 32, 45, Carrier or Crowsnest Merlin and is in line of sight. The shepherd can use the Quadcon as an additional magazine.

            If we use SeaCeptor as the example. This is pretty much a 4th generation surface to air missile. The parent ship does not need a dedicated tracking radar. The ship’s radar just needs a 3D search mode to find a target, i.e. slant range, height and bearing. Having the additional velocity change of the target helps, as the it can then be used to predict the target’s track. SeaCeptor like all missiles use a inertial navigation system (INS). This is to allow it to steer from a known reference point, i.e. from the ship towards the intercept point.

            With SeaCeptor, the Navy use the Artisan PESA radar. This is a multimode radar that has an excellent search function. The Artisan will detect the threat and follow its track, then predict its destination. The combat management system (CMS) will then if it sees the inbound threat as valid, direct a SeaCeptor at it. Depending on the range to the threat SeaCeptor will do one of two things. If it is really close the missile will fly directly towards the predicted intercept point. If the inbound threat is manoeuvring and jinking around the predicted track will be constantly moving and the missile will be constantly updated via datalink towards the new intercept point. When it gets within a certain range of the target, the onboard Radar seeker will be activated and this will take over the targeting from the ship’s radar and command guidance towards the intercept point. The CMS and operator will monitor the missile’s intercept track and can give course corrections if it has been decoyed.

            The other option is if the threat has been validated and is much further away. Here the SeaCeptor will not fly directly towards the threat. It will initially go nearly vertically up to gain altitude. Then it will fall on the threat using the potential energy gained from height to maintain its speed. As the SeaCeptor’s rocket engine is a one shot only, if it had to constantly change its flight path to match the intercept point, it will quickly slow down due to the drag when manoeuvring. By lofting it high, the missile gains potential energy but also increases its effective range. Again the missile will be comparing its INS reference point with the command guidance from the ship, then turn on its active radar at a predetermined point.

            The active radar in the nose of the SeaCeptor is very high frequency (very small wavelength) and not all that powerful, so its detection range is quite low. It will be fairly close to the target before it is activated. This means if the target is an aircraft, it won’t know for certain that it is being tracked and that a missile is on the way. It will know that a search radar is out there and has probably illuminated it. If the aircraft has a missile approach warning system (MAWS), it may have detected the launch if was close. But its only with an active radar MAWS that an approaching missile can really be tracked (the F35’s IR DAS can do this, but that’s a whole different subject).

            I don’t see an issue with a vertically launched ship based Spear 3/EW. In fact, I believe it would make a lot of sense. Spear 3 weighs in at 100kg, which is just slightly more than CAMM/SeaCeptor. It is wider though, at 180mm diameter compared to 166mm. Whereas CAMM-ER with the booster is at 190mm diameter. So weight wise, the current SeaCeptor cold launch system wouldn’t have any issue lobbing up 30m or so.

            However, we can do a lot better, I don’t think the turbojet is man enough to launch it. If we used the cold launch system of the larger CAMM-ER but attached a rocket booster to Spear 3, we can dramatically increase the range and loiter durability and possibly decrease the time to target if required. Rather than lobbing it out of the launcher, activating the reaction jets to point it in the right direction. I would program the missile to follow a ballistic path. During this ascent, I would not deploy the main wings or activate the turbojet. By doing so, we can significantly reduce the drag and rely on the booster rocket to provide the thrust. The rocket will only last a max of 10 seconds. But this should be enough to punch it to a quite high altitude very quickly. Here it can trade height/speed for distance as it falls to earth after the apogee, using its tail fins to steer it towards the next waypoint or target. At a programmed height, I ‘d deploy the wings and activate the turbojet so the missile can then fly to the target at low level, trying to avoid radar. By using this Hi-Lo approach profile will significantly increase the missile’s range and allow it to loiter over a target area for a lot longer.

  5. How many missiles are in the contract?

    Does S3 have any sort of ASM capability?

    Does this replace or just supplement Storm Shadow?

    Also, concerning 4 stowed internally. I assume this would reduce if a loyal wingman type drone was also carried.

    • Hi @DM, if you believe the blurb that has been put out, S3 is effective against both land and sea targets both stationary and moving!
      Not sure wrt SS, S3 has a far smaller warhead and range, so, best guess is it probably replaces it on F35, as MOD parked requirement to integrate SS with BK 4 upgrade, not read/seen anything that reverses that decision.

      • Thanks mate. Makes sense. Even if it does have even rudimentary ASM capability, I hope an air launched ASM missile is also purchased.

    • It won’t replace stormshadow, as that weapon has longer range and a larger warhead, Spear 4 will replace Stormshadow. But this weapon will bring an extremely versatile weapon that can be carried in numbers. Fixed targets, moving targets, and it has anti ship capability.

        • I’m not sure to be honest, if it replaces Brimstone 2, or compliments it. Brimstone 2 is pretty new, so I don’t think it replaces it, I’m sure someone will correct me.

          • Brimstone is not being integrated on to the F35 as of yet! I haven’t seen anything about it in the Block 5 blurb. So for the UK it will primarily be used by Typhoon, Protector, Reaper if they’re still in service, and possibly Apache. Don’t forget, Spear 3 can do everything Brimstone can plus loiter. Though Brimstone is high supersonic whilst Spear 3 is subsonic.

          • Te fact that Spear 3 is subsonic, puts it at a disadvantage in todays world. A supersonic version would be a much more preferable choice.

          • If the Spear 3 kept the same rocket engine in Brimstone 2, it would need a new wing design. It would also have a significant drop in range and will not have a decent loiter capability if at all. To replace the current mini turbojet with a much higher thrust one would mean the airframe would have to get much bigger, thus pushing up the weight. So for a F35B less would be able to be carried internally.

            I think there is a case for a small supersonic mini cruise missile. Spear 3 is not it, as it would require a clean sheet design.

        • Hi DM, If I understand all the bumf correctly SPEAR 3 and variants could be seen as a long range Brimstone. They use many of the same parts, the same diameter 7.1inch with wings folded as Brimstone and the same type of warhead. The weight diffrence is due to the larger motor, wings and fuel pack.
          If MDBA can get SPEAR 3 to operate from a VLS it could be a useful missile for a small combattant or as a secondery Anti Ship Missile/ Swarm Attack missile to overwhelm an enemies defence whilst the main strike comes just behind. They do appear to be able to be quad packed into either Sylver or Mk41s.

    • No, the weapon that will be replacing Storm Shadow is planned to be the joint UK/France Future Anti-Ship Missile (FC/ASW) by 2030-ish. It is designed to replace harpoon, Exocet, Storm Shadow and SCALP. Storm Shadow is predominately used against hardened targets such as bunkers, bomb dumps and aircraft hardened shelters. Even though Spear 3 has a programmable multi-effects tandem shaped warhead. It is too feeble for these kinds of targets even when used in a swarm.

  6. When they say 7 year demonstration phase does this mean it won’t actually be operational until 2027? It makes sense for F35B but if this was test fired from a Typhoon 2 or 3 years ago surely it should be ready for operation in a very short space of time.

      • That’s good news then. It looks like it’s ready to go on Typhoon hopefully it won’t take too long to integrate on F35. The range should keep Typhoon well out of harms way from short and medium range Sam’s. Everyone keeps talking about S400 but it doesn’t look like the most deployable missile on the planet. We could probably knock them out quite easily on day 1 of any conflict meaning Russia or anyone else would need 100s of batteries

  7. A lot of comments on this site have expressed concern about the lack of a heavy anti ship capabity. This would seem to be a better solution: the F35 will carry these internally and remain stealthy. A larger Harpoon/Exocet missile would have to be carried externally losing the stealth advantage. I guess(I don’t know) that it will be harder to defend against a salvo of Spear3s than a single heavyweight AShM.
    What we also need is a ship launched version, though a shorter range supersonic missile might be better – Sea Brimstone perhaps?
    ,

      • As SDB is a glide bomb its range is determined by the release height of the aircraft. So when it states Spear 3 has twice the range of SDB, its contextual. Especially as Spear 3 can be released from very low level, but still have a range over 100km. From high altitude it is probably a lot more than 100km.

        • Just to be clear the ‘twice the range’ comment was a result of my fag packet googling. I’ve not seen any official comparison. Low level approach and pop up launch from long range sounds good.
          I vaguely recall at one point there was some pressure ( from Boeing?) on the UK to drop Spear 3 in favour of a cheap deal on SDB. Glad to see we held out for Spear.

    • Bit of a waste doing that. A 5m long MK41 type cell with a 2 m long missile. (SPEAR 3 + a VL booster) in it. The current and ongoing upgrade to Sea Ceptor software will give it an Anti swarm/Anti Ship capability this year. So on a T26 the separate Sea Ceptor Launchers and the T31 launchers would be dual use…anti air and anti surface.

      • But wouldn’t the warhead on ceptor be too lightweight to be effective against all but the smallest of marine craft….and with limited range. Pending the arrival of son of perseus the quad packing S3 at least provides some reach and punch on those vessels that won’t have 1 of the 5 interim Ashm sets.

      • The Mk 41 is not a fixed length. The Spear has 3 to 4 times the range. It has a far bigger and flexible warhead giving it a far greater potency than Ceptor.

        • I full appreciate that MK 41 and 57 vary from regular to strike length. Using only 3 m of a 5-8 m launcher is a waste compared to filling it with a longer, more capable and multi use missile.
          AS the T26 will have both launchers I cannot see the need to use MK41 for Spear3. As the interim ASM will be with us by then we need to see how that is launched. If its a seperate launcher (harpoon/NSM) then I can see the MK41 getting used for additional SAM or ASW capability.
          On a T31 who knows. It will depend on where its working and the threat level. A T31 in the Windes would be configured for drug runners, boarding and Hurricane relief. In the Gulf or SCS a more all round on figuration would be used.

          • Length is not the critical factor. It is the square deck area occupied. The question is 4 short to medium range ASM v 1 long range missile. Should there be a mix and if so what is the best balance for differing operational situations.

    • Why put spear 3 in any VLS? At 2m in length and 180mm diameter, spear 3 is only a foot longer than a hellfire, 8 of which can be fitted to a RWS on a Humvee.

      Could we not simply stick a 4 or 6 cell pod on each side of a modified DS30M style mount and fit a couple per ship?

      As a non deck penetrating mount, we could just move them between ships if and when required.

      For a maritime environment, maybe the 19kg warhead from the sea spear might be fitted to spear 3.

      • The thing that seem to be forgotten is the basic Spear 3 would most probably require a booster rocket to lift it to an optimal height. This would obvisiously increase the length but hugely increase the range and flexibility of the system.

        • Thanks JH,

          I do not think mbda have released any data on the range of surface launched brimstone 2, sea spear or spear 3. There is a video showing sea spear hitting a target 20km away, but true range might be much further.

          like you say, to get effective loitering or ew capability, spear 3 might need to get to a much greater heights than brimstone and sea spear.

  10. Anyway, I think we can all agree, a GOOD thing for once.

    An output of having proper funding in place for modernisation initiatives like this.

    Make no mistake some weapons procurement that is fully developed and has been kicked down the road for cash flow reasons is going to get warmed up pretty quickly.

    It is going to make a massive difference having the whole of the RN equipped with state of the art missiles.

  13. So now Harpoon/SLAM is a cruise missile?

    Nevertheless the big ticket here is that 8 can be put in F35 bomb bay. The speed certainly does not make it at problem for modern air defenses so the bet is in saturation.

    • Air defenses also have to be available to defend its intended target. 99% of the time there will be nothing to intercept it and if there is 4 missiles on a saturation attack would likely get most of the missiles through to the target

  14. wonder if it could be carried on Merlin, Wildcat or Apache? is launch speed an issue and would it need a booster. ? Reminds me of a baby Sea Eagle.

  15. Good to see that its coming to fruition. Export opportunities abound for this system. Any of the F35 and Typhoon operators in Europe, Mid East and Far East will be looking on with interest.

    I did read a Leonardo comment somewhere that the proposed EW version can jam and spoof only and won’t have a warhead. However they said it could suicide into a radar aerial/antenna giving you a secondary, nice to have SEAD capability.
    As well as the kinetic hit of a few hundred Kgs of missile at 200 odd mph any fuel still onboard , even a small amount, that would cause a fire, burn cables and connectors and give you a mission kill.

    • Yep, Spear EW does not have a warhead. The space is taken up by a developed version of Leonardo’s Britecloud DRFM system. From what I have read the bandwidth and power has been expanded to make it even more effective.

    • SPEAR EW will be a game changer, detecting ground radar signals and guiding SPEAR 3 missiles towards it as a networked swarm, all whilst jamming said radar and spoofing it with numerous decoys.

      Not to mention likely a much longer range due to lack of warhead and thus will loiter above targets providing consistent jamming.

  16. With all the new weapons systems being announced I think I’m getting muddled on their intended roles etc.

    The Harpoon is to be phased out and replaced Perseus is that right? And an interim found in the meantime?

    Martlet is a short range light missile for helicopters but the Lynx can’t engage multiple targets simultaneously. Is there a heavy weight weapon on its way to complement Martlet and can Martlet be used by surface vessels?

    Brimstone was tested recently wasn’t it against multiple simulated fast attack craft? Will this be entering Naval service and if so where does it fit in in relation to Martlet/Spear/Harpoon in terms of range/payload/launch platform?

    Spear3 is to be air launched by F35 can it be launched by the Lynx? Surface ships as well? Where does this fit in compared to the other weapon systems mentioned above?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here