Britain developing homegrown hypersonic missile

My gut take is that FC/ASW is the predictable achievable plan and this programme is reflecting the increasing perception that a hypersonic missile may well be required by 2030+ and this is thus trying to create all the mechanisms required to make it happen in addition to the current Anglo French missiles. Such a missile would likely be for high end targets otherwise less susceptible to other types of missiles so it’s unlikely you would ever wish to only have a hypersonic option just as in aircraft you want a mix of 4th and 5th Gen airframes. Somewhat surprised mind that it isn’t being carried out with others as it’s going to be an expensive programme especially difficult in that timeline but then it may make decision making easier perhaps and cooperation may develop later.

Ah, sorry, was replying to one of your other comments- looks like you and I envisage a similar use for these hypersonic missiles!
I agree, unless there’s something significant we don’t know, in service by 2030 is a stretch. Unless we buy something American off the shelf.
I’d have thought that the French would be interested in a hypersonic FC/ASW 2 extension programme, so like you I’m a little surprised we haven’t gone that route. Maybe they don’t have the budget for it at the moment..?

French focus on hypersonics is primarily on the ASMP replacement.

They keep that very compartmentalised for obvious reasons.

That’s fair, I can understand them wanting to keep that to themselves. And given where we are, our hypersonic requirements probably aren’t going to be directly applicable between the two.

Misses the point it’s horses for courses it’s not about a one for one replacement you use a hypersonic for very high end well protected targets or with other missile types though in far fewer numbers to increase the overall effectiveness of the combined attack.

It’s not going to be $100m a round.

It won’t be cheap but there is no reason why a rocket powered hypersonic should not be a ‘reasonable’ cost.

I think the post WW2 USA is largely a thing of the past, isolationism will just continue to grow, I don’t think anyone should be banking on US security guarantees or even weapon supplies in future.

No a major issue for the UK with the exclusion of Trident D5 and its replacement. I think we should start our own SLBM program now maybe buy the design for M51 from the French but build our own version.

Congress is too powerful now and there are just too many cooks that can throw a spanner in the works for little to no reason at any time.

Isolationalist USA is a delusion the USA has from time to time. Then something bites it hard on the ass & it becomes responsable again. I can’t see much more dangerous than a Trump Putin fanboy presidency who behaves like a spoilt kid well out of his depth in a paddling pool. With Russia & China making mischeif, hopefully this spell will pass.
UK included, Europe needs to pull its weight & responsabilities. Combined there’s enough resources to oppose Putin given the leadership & wisdom, which is more the problem we have.

Indeed Europe has ten times the economy of Russia and a far larger population, we really should combined be able to piss in their Baltic Sea to paraphrase Monty Python without US support should that ever dissipate. With Trump sating apparently in 2020 that He as President would never come to Europes aid in a war in Europe we certainly have to take that risk very seriously. Mind you the image of Putin hacking around on his Scottish golf links might change his mind, if he still has a mind by then.

That would surely be closely examined by any French president or any majority that would come out of elections. No issue for an increase of cooperation with UK from any side of electoral corp in France.
The fact that we currently are the only nuclear power of the EU is a chance, but not 100% perceived this way by Europeans of fellow countrymen. One thing is sure: we don’t want UK loosing it’s nuclear submarine deterrent.
As far as I am concerned, I am looking for the 3rd component to reemerge (ground to ground missile + tunnels) for France & EU. May be 2 more submarines.
And for UK, the sooner air nuclear missiles will be available, the safer it will be. No time to waste.

Seems like Taylor Greene can practically do it on her own with her conspiracy mutterings.

TBH I think we should build new missiles alongside the French. They must be planning on renewing their own SSBN deterrent sometime in the near future.

I was wondering that, you have to have something to offer if you are going to interest the Americans.

There is so much bad info out there about hypersonic it’s just baffling. For one at least in US doctrine, they are not there to replace other missiles but their mission is the prosecution of high value, time sensitive targets in denied environments. Also there have been articles published years ago where US military officials have publicly stated that this “plasma shield” does not affect their ability to communicate with the weapon. It’s very easy to find this statement via google.

A lot depends on the design of the hypersonic vehicle. Which can dictate how and where the plasma is generated. It normally starts on the nose of the vehicle and then the leading edges of wings/fins. The density of the air also has a major factor on plasma generation. The higher you go the air becomes less dense, so the plasma being generated can also be thinner. For example a vehicle travelling Mach 7+ at sea level is very likely going to generate a thick plasma, whereas at 250,000ft perhaps not so much.

Atmospheric plasma is made up from disassociated molecules of nitrogen and oxygen. This has an electrical charge, meaning the plasma can be manipulated by electromagnetic fields. Such as those found in nuclear fusion tokamaks or plasma TVS. But it does mean that an RF wave cannot pass through it. Though in Tokamaks, they do electromagnetic manipulation have the ability to open a window in the plasma, so that radio waves can be used for testing.

As a vehicle flies faster than Mach 5, the nose of the aircraft will heat up due to the shock waves being generated. The local skin temperature will ramp up caused by the boundary layer being compressed. Which also increases the surface pressure and thereby ramps up drag. The temperature has to be greater than 2000K (1726C) for oxygen to break down and greater than 4000K (3726C) for nitrogen. In between these temperatures the plasma will form. At Mach 5 the nose temperature may be just less than 1273K (1000C), which isn’t enough for disassociation. But at Mach 7, you will likely start seeing the effects. Faster still, the plasma grows and spreads down the body of the vehicle. Til such point, the whole body is covered by plasma.

However, there is usually a small window at the back of the vehicle that is not covered by plamsa. Where rear facing antennas can be used for communications.

Nothing can be doubted with Chinese. Every defence has to work first time. One thing Europe and the USA do seem to do is lots of testing and then understating the results.

True. A Tempest like project might to me seem like a natural project for that sort of injection of cash. I suppose there has been some work in this direction already so I suppose – why not.

I tend to agree with that generally but one has to also take into consideration the damage a hypersonic missile does even without a warhead at that speed and propulsion technology is progressing well beyond SS in efficiency. But yes the size equation is still relevant here.

That’s very true- high velocity bits of steel are very much damaging on their own!
I’m imagining that this weapon will be the top tier replacement for Storm Shadow- hitting the real high value targets (equivalent of the Kerch bridge, various bunkers, etc.), so a sizeable warhead is probably still going to be a pre-requisite.
One of the other things we need to consider is just how effective cluster munitions have been, both DPICM artillery and the ATACMs, for Ukraine. We have nothing that comes close, and I feel that’s lacking. Being a signatory on the cluster munitions convention is an issue here, I recognise that.

I know this is not on topic but I couldn’t agree more re: cluster munitions.
It would appear to me to be very cost effective way of starting to address our deficit in artillery capability.
I know it wouldn’t be popular with many, but could we not just pull out of the convention?

I know, they seem to do a good job. I can certainly understand the concerns with them too though- the possibility of injuries to civilians from duds was a genuine risk. In my view, the convention was over-eager; they didn’t see a possibility that reliability of the submunitions could be improved to a point where the risk of duds was low enough, so they just outright banned them. The US was wiser, didn’t sign up to it, but put a strict standard for sub-munition reliability. The older DPICM shells still don’t meet that standard, as far as I know, but at least there’s an opportunity there for industry to deliver a properly ‘safe’ solution.
Withdrawing from the convention would be horrific press, I don’t think that could be done. Developing safer weapons, and then somehow redefining them, before altering the wording in the convention may be the best way forward- even if it is rather sneaky.

So you believe a random former pilot on the internet compared to several studies and testimony from Serbian soldiers who openly admitted that they had to turn their radars off out of fear of being targeted by the HARMS?

I don’t know. I think that if Serbian’s were able to avoid being destroyed by Harm missiles by turning on and off air defense, it is wise to assume counter measures progressed, even if the Harm missile is better now. So, I would rather be cautious with this very fast missile, not so big warhead that was not able to fulfill it’s mission properly. Let’s put it this way, I would not over rely on this system and I would prefer to have a backup, just in case.
There is this other system, ground based that rely on GPS guidance, launched from MLRS. It is not working, because of Russian jamming. So Ukraine is no longer able to rely on Himars to target distant ground targets. It is a problem. May be if Ukrainians had an alternative system, they could destroy for sur distant target. I just applied the same reasoning to the Harm, that, if for sure enable to switch off some radars, is of no help to destroy them. Destruction is a bit better in my opinion than temporary switch off.

“Destruction is a bit better in my opinion than temporary switch off.”

I agree with this. You are forgetting one thing however. If a HARM missile forces you to turn your radar off then it has already accomplished it’s mission. Also be aware that the aargm-er is a much more sophisticated weapon that uses a tri-mode seeker which means gps jamming will be almost useless against it. Add to that fact is that it can target radar emissions from over 200km away, it’s near hypersonic speed and it’s totally passive in terms of it’s own emissions means the radar operator will not have any idea that they are being targeted.

HARM did suppress defences. But the early models weren’t great at killing the defences. ALARM was far more successful. But the latest AARGM and AARGM-ER include a MMW seeker so that even if the radar is shut down it will still get targeted.

Your right. Let say that the 90´s surprise is over and the new version has more sensors which makes it better. But still… I don’t like surprises. Redondant approach is better.

For example, in Ukraine, we send the AMX 10RC. This véhicule was good in the desert, but even if we explained how to use them to the armies of Ukraine, it reveals itself as useless in this conflict, because drone replaces the need for armed recon. And we don’t have substitution.

Harm is well known, ennemies have had plenty of time to study it and adapt to it. I would be pleased to have a backup. Long range loitering munition developed in UK (covert program) and France (Crash program Larinae) may be a good alternative. Spearwear missile as well.

That was HARM in the 90’s. Back then HARM did not have a vital component which is GPS. In simplistic terms, today’s HARM can remember where the radar was located by referencing the transmitted signal to its current position. It then flies to where it believes the signal was coming from. In Gulf War 2, it worked pretty well.

SPEAR-3 will be the UK’s anti-radiation missile. Though it can loiter if it losses the signal. Plus it can use it radar for basic ground mapping to find the target.

That’s the point, a backup, just in case. It creates more questions to the opponent. The Mistral/stinger use infrared, the Starstreak use optics and other use radar. It is difficult for the foe to adapt to all situations.

I don’t know who’s idea it was to have different size weapon bays for the b model but it’s a bit of an issue. The difference isn’t that much but seems to be an issue.
It Maybe a case of get the weapon into service on A then shrink it a bit for the B model.

The B version had to make compromises due to the Lift Fan. In the A and C versions, this area is predominantly a fuel tank. But housed some other parts. Which had to get shifted around for the B version. Hence why the bomb bay is slightly smaller than the other versions.

Anything that long range and large, will have to go under the wings.

My gut feeling is that US technology sharing between AUKUS partners was/is only just being agreed upon and vital to any serious cooperation. However is it not possible that this hypersonic programmed is actually enabled by such lessening of US restrictions on such sharing. In other words each partner benefits from share research and development but are free to within certain parameters no doubt, to produce their own national weapons/versions of that joint shared research. This announcement might even be the first fruit of that agreement enabling us to produce such a weapon within a timeframe and cost because of that cooperation. Describing it as a UK project also helps to ease any potential tension with France and Europeans generally that specific competing projects within AUKUS per se might do.

Quite possibly, ultimately. Nearer term concentration will be targeted at the production of viable prototype(s). 🤔

Yes, wasn’t sure which you were referring to.
It has been a little long in it’s development, as it was initially meant to be ready this year I believe. I think that when it was discovered that LM would be late in delivering BlkIV, MBDA took their foot of the pedal a bit. We subsequently now have time to address any issues there might have been, so its ready when BLK IV comes along. Personally believe it could be ready far sooner than 2027/8, but as it’s currently only going on to our F35Bs, there is no need to rush!

There was plans for typhoon deployment but they seem to have been dropped.

Spear is still to be carried by Typhoon. Germany is very interested in Spear-EW in particular.

WHAT?, the F22, U2/SR71 failed? the others i agree with.

F22 failed as they built 186 of them at massive cost then the program got scrubbed. SR71 was very very expensive and a handful were built. U2 the original version was a death trap who’s job was largely replaced with satellites soon after deployment. Dragon lady was much more successful however.

These aircraft were all technically innovative but the programs were very expensive and largely failed to live up to what the started out to achieve.

The F22 was suppose to replace the F15, it didn’t. The SR71 had numerous versions that never got into service and much if not all the survelanace work it did could be done massive cheaper and safer by the Dragon Lady and satellites.

I’m confused the Dragon Lady is effectively a U2 so how can you say that was effective yet the U2 on which it was intrinsically based was not. Equally even today despite all the hype over Satellites it is well accepted that non orbital platforms are vital for gathering intelligence, not only because technically they over most of their lives at least have in many circumstances been able to provide better imagery and intelligence but unless you have thousands of complex spy satellites you can’t necessarily cover the areas that you need too assuming weather and counter measures aren’t a factor. While spy satellites can be manoeuvred to a degree when required that ability is limited and very expensive and totally reliant upon the fuel available and whether you wish to reduce the life cycle by expending it. The fact that the U2 stayed in service for so long proves that the relevant US intelligence services disagree with your assesment and while I respect your views I can’t agree on this one on balance.

F22 well it’s still a decade or so ahead of the opposition and while horrendously expensive (which is why production stopped based on post Soviet perceived threat) the US would be worse off not having it as top predator and now that a replacement is required such a platform is now needed anyway and that platform will be incredibly difficult and expensive to achieve without what has been learned through that and the F35 programmes and would likely be little to no better asa result than Chinese efforts which presently by the most generous accounts are 4 times more visible on radar than the F-22.

So yes judging success is far more than totting up costs certainly for a Country that can afford it. Always a balance of factors some very lateral.

👍Exactly!

Seriously Jim, there is so much rubbish in this post It’s hard to know where to begin. Are you aware that the SR-71 was in service for more than 30 years? Are you aware that the U2 is still in service today? Do you understand why there is a need for ISTAR drones like the rq-180 and why the US keep pumping billions of dollars into other black ISTAR projects?

Any advanced adversary can track satellites, even hobbyist are able to track some of the most advanced ones. I’m not even going to get into the fact of satellite coverage being impacted by weather and other manmade obscurants. There will always be a need for penetrating, high performance aircraft.

The F-22 numbers got cut short not because it was a failure, but the enemy that it was designed for, the soviet union, disappeared. The same applies for the B-2, and the Seawolf class of attack subs. It can be argued that all those programs that you now classify as failures are still the most capable platforms to this day, decades after they were designed.

“Yes and all arguably expensive gimmicks that failed in their mission with the exclusion of B52″

I think you lose all credibility with comments like this.

I don’t believe so, I’m looking at economics rather than technical “break throughs”

Deeper analysis is required to decide if a program is successful as opposed to, wow that goes Mach 3 and cost a gizillion dollars so clearly Kelly Johnson is a genius.

If the SR71 was successful it woukd still be flying today but it’s not.

The F22 will be dead and buried and the F15 will be in the air decades later.

The U2 almost started two world wars getting shit down doing a job that satellites could largely do.

It was based on a failed premise from day one that the soviets could track object flying that high but they could.

These programs were all technical marvels but that does not make them successful.

I’m not sure if you are being serious in your post because using the standards that you use for the sr71, why isn’t the spitfire still flying today?

If we’re using economics then the typhoon, the t-45, the astutes, the challenger tanks have all been abysmal failures. Honestly by that standard I can’t think of even one major UK weapons project that would be classified as a success.

Really the projects Jim listed are successful is some aspects and failures in others.
I don’t think those U.K. projects are failures. Astute set out to replace the SSN with 7 new boats. It’s accomplishing that goal. Whether more should have been built isn’t what makes a successful project. Challenger 3 is the same. Make 150 tanks to replace challenger 2. Now if it doesn’t work or gets stopped at 40 tanks it failed.
F22 goal was to replace F15. It failed as it was too costly and over specified. Now had the Cold War not ended then I think the F22 would have accomplished its goals and production numbers. It did succeed in advancing fighter tech which helped the F35.

“Whether more should have been built isn’t what makes a successful project.”

This is exactly the point I was making. Just to be clear I don’t think any of those platforms are failures. I was pointing out the he was applying a standard that if applied evenly to almost any defence project from any country would make all of them failures. Now if he had mentioned the LCS or the Zumwalt, then he would have a point.

Actually, of all the NATO mbt’s in Ukraine, Challenger 2 is the standout according to Ukraine troops on the ground. Why – sights & gun accuracy. Something to think about. Just because everyone says so doesn’t mean it is so.

Yes, the Cold War plan was to produce 350 F-22’s.

You see I agree and disagree with your various points in equal measure. I could go on for hours about Kelly Johnson a man who was described as ‘seeing air’ because of his apparent instinctive insight into aerodynamic errors with the Model 10 yet seemed to have no such intrinsic insight into those of the P-38 which killed pilots and led to some deeply flawed attempts to remedy the compressibility issues one of which (the raised tail) killed the test pilot.

But that is the point in a way, there is no single view, no one basis to judge success or failure, it’s a range of factors that need to be added up and prejudice, bias, new insights over time and simple error can skew those judgements. In 1938 many at the Air Ministry saw the Spitfire as simply the ultimate vision of yesterdays technology the Whirlwind the beginning of tomorrows. Griffith arguably the father of gas turbine technology, none the less saw only its Turbo prop future thought thrust would never be enough and as such held back uk pure jet development by years and pushed Whittle to very nearly give up on it. Even if things are failures it doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t worthwhile either because of how they feed into future technology, the Whirlwind influenced future designs including the Mosquito and Hornet not to mention helped develop the skill base of one of our great aircraft designers that would greatly influence the Lightning. But then was that a success or a failure? In many ways both but it certainly in itself added greatly to UK supersonic knowledge and capabilities and perhaps had EE been given lead design instead of Vickers (the bigger more influential company) in the TSR2 (which looked remarkably like EEs earlier proposals and clearly derived from) it would have been a production as well as technical success. But that opens a whole new can of worms.

Jim seems to be like x(formerly Steve Taylor) from NL and here? Was that name banned from this site several years ago?
UKDJ needs to investigate him.
There is something deceptive about him.

I agree, I don’t think we want to be part of this gimmick. I don’t want to be dropping a £1 billion on an R&D program or buying any US missiles at $100 million a go.

So, what is the answer? what makes sense but does not cost us BILLIONS, buy chinse or Russian, theirs works, The US one does not YET?#
Could always trade North Korea some buggers for their leader for one there wonky ones.

It’s an answer to a question we don’t need to answer. Hypersonics are a gimmick.

We should stick with sub sonic cheap long range low observable cruise missiles like FC/ASW.

Why are they a gimmick, ? harder to hit, less time to react.

I’m referring to conventional hypersonic weapons not nuclear ones

they are a gimmick because they cost $100 million each and do a job that can largely be done by $1 million cruise missiles.

They will be so expensive there is almost no target worth hitting with them.

They are dumb weapons with little if any situational awareness or ability to communicate with operators or other weapons and they sacrifice range for speed.

Traveling at hypersonic speed also generates massive amounts of thermal energy which instantly telegraphs a position to any enemy with an IR satellite capability as well.

so why does the UK want them, we will never put a nuke on one. Seem a lot of money for a weapon so expensive we would have very few to use. Too expensive to fire at most targets.

That’s the traditional view of such weapons and why they were never really developed beyond ballistic missiles which hit hypersonic speeds by necessity. However technology has changed and new generation hybrid hypersonic powertrains can offer great range, especially when flying high where the atmosphere is thin. Hypersonic aircraft with long range are about to be flown as text beds let alone missiles after all. Size and more-so cost are still issues but I am not sure insurmountable ones and present research is there to determine these factors and their ultimate usefulness in a conflict as conflict risk surely determines you should study.

As I said before only a few could afford satellite launchers even ten to twenty years ago now even New Zealand can spawn a serious competitor and twenty or more are moving ahead around the World and the old school launchers like ULA, Roscosmos and ArianeGroup are being left behind and mostly unprofitable.

Equally as is often mentioned in respect of the F-35 it can be detected by some radars but successfully targeting it is a completely different matter. The F-117 incidentally actually proved that point.rather than contradicted it. Satellites may be able to detect a hypersonic missile but it’s no more than a help, they can detect ballistic missiles too but few think it will thus lead to nuclear weapons being redundant or ineffective. A manoeuvring hypersonic missile of various types will be almost impossible to truly determine its target just a general prediction within a relatively wide range at best. Then you have to try to arrange an intercept based on that prediction that may need updates and the faster the interceptor the less easy to hit such a projectile as they suffer similar range manoeuvring issues. Again that also ignores the use of Plasma streams as a potential masking agent if that can be achieved.

To anyone who has studied them objectively they aren’t, even if their exact advantages and merits are still up for some debate. To dismiss them is equivalent to dismissing the jet engine in 1940 when the argument for relative power (let alone familiarity) still favoured the new generation piston engines then in development.

Seriously if you have seriously studied the research and development of hypersonics Jim you will see strong evidence that hypersonics are anything but a gimmick for reasons I have mentioned in other posts so won’t do so here. The US postponed its hypersonic development a decade ago simply because it did not see the cost/capability balance it provided was required back then, the same reason it stalled further investment on the award winning best in class Northrop Grumman autonomous drone platform. However that work has been resumed on both for very good reason and rightly so in my mind as there is no current understanding as to whether slower supposedly more stealthy platforms will be effective in the 30s. Remember Russia is currently introducing more sophisticated radar systems beyond the S-400 even if few and far between currently thankfully and equally from all evidence from Ukraine I see the Ukranians create complex attack regimes when using Storm Shadow to allow it to be effective including attacks that draw away air defences over days, spoof missiles to draw away defending missiles and overload them and by plotting tracks that avoid known defensive missile locations that are often discovered via drone attacks et al. If to make SS successful you need to go to these lengths then clearly even with a superior missile will it be successful against tough well defended targets or need ten or so to succeed when one has at least to consider whether one hypersonic could do the job? The cost differential then comes down especially as with satellite launchers the costs will inevitably come down with hypersonic missiles over time so so disregard it now due to purely cost would arguably be short sighted at the very least. Equally as I add elsewhere the US is studying the effects of the plasma wave being used to generate stealth. You have to research these matters as they can change the parameters substantially and thus cost/performance balance.

Another factor is simply the response effect whereby defenders have to respond faster the faster a threat is travelling and the time available is reduced. The Russians have shot down a number of their own aircraft due to errors due to these factors imagine the problems when you have a few hypersonics amongst the whole gambit of threats coming in and from different directions. No coincidence that the Russians even with their mediocre Kinzhals use them within swarm attacks. In my view it would be madness to disregard hypersonic development especially as hypersonic though a buzz word isn’t actually as complex to create as many think I mean Starsteak is near hypersonic, it’s what you do with the potential speed that’s more relevant even if it’s a factor in its own right. Maouverability at such speed is the true game changer however even if limited.

However I do agree that as a buzz word I am not sure it’s a be all a missile that’s is technically a little sub hypersonic may well be better and more effective give than one somewhat more even when each uses speed as a major fa tor in its design.

As an aside which I meant to raise in another reply I don’t buy that whatever its relative merits you can claim the SR-71 was clearly a failure ‘otherwise it would still be flying’, that has no innate logic to it for such a long flying aircraft (once un-retired indeed) otherwise by definition a Spitfire was a failure because it wasn’t effective in the 60s or a Tomcat because it’s not flying now. Things move on, indeed at its most extreme during WW1 what was king of the skies at one moment was a relative death trap as little as 6 mths later so were they thus failures? A plane designed for a job in the late 50s isn’t necessarily going to be useful now.

US is in a totally different position to us, they are 000’s of miles away from any potential enemy and have large Strategic Platforms available. So they can carry heavier and bigger weapons than us and fire at long range, we don’t have those so we need something much smaller.

Europe’s present potential platforms are Typhoon & Rafale and will for the next 15/20 years.The F35B would mean spending money getting it integrated by LM and that will be expensive, but would you need stealth for stand off weapons like these ?

As for me saying it’s daft, the definition of my argument would be Typhoon and Rafale !
We have 2 Neighbouring countries, with similar international obligations just 21 miles apart who designed and built small, supersonic delta winged aircraft with canards doing similar jobs.

For aircraft things haven’t changed (see Dassault for details), but for Missiles things really have moved on.
MBDA works well and have produced numerous excellent missiles at a reasonable cost and work, Storm Shadow / SCALP, Meteor, CAMM etc etc.
IMHO as we are both now developing Hypersonic weapons which will have to fit on those Aircraft they will need to be very similar weight / size wise. The synergies are obvious.

All I’m saying is that now we have announced that we are also doing similar why not compare notes with France and see if a joint approach would be viable.

France has been open about what they have been doing, and I agree some of the detail suggests we have been working along the same lines for a while.

Besides which who other than MBDA (UK) could build it ?

The issue is AUKUS pillar whatever that has hypersonic in it.

There was tech sharing.

US don’t trust the French with intel as they will do what suits them with it including leaking it. The French are not team players are highly self interested in Presidential Electoral Prestige dressed up as ‘for the dignity of France’.

SB if Mr Orange gets in, which would you trust the least ? As for intel the French aren’t in 5 eyes. And all I’m saying is speaking to the French about industrial cooperation isn’t such a bad idea.
As for AUKUS if Trump gets in I would worry about him just ditching it !
Though if he did it could be quite an opportunity.

If TTTB (The Tangerine Tinted Buffon) gets in it may well become JAUKAS……I don’t see FRUKAS as a thing? [sorry having too much fun with acronyms in a very dull meeting]

The point I’m making is that some of the tech that UK has, may well have been a synthesis of that shared with and some from US and AUS so we might not be able to share with France even if we wanted to.

We got a long way with hypersonics before developing into deployable weapon(s) was shut down. So I’d guess that we have all the pieces in place.

It might be less of an ask than we realise if the propulsion and flight controls package is resolved.

Slight correction – US is geographically closer to Russia, than most of Europe. Bering Strait is only 82km wide at the narrowest part. It’s also much much closer (geographically) to North Korea & China than any country in Europe. US is now switching to the Pacific as its main concern. If you were them, you would be too.

Either way what they would use are Strategic Bombers and long range missiles, don’t forget both potential adversaries aren’t exactly small.
We on the other hand can get away with smaller and with less range.

IMHO it is high time we had Lancaster House 2.
Both commit to a 5th SSBN and adopt an integrated rotation / maintenance cycle to ensure 3/4 on patrol at any one time.
Which is perfectly doable given the 30 Year lifetime, France using HEU for their SSBN and both wanted 5 in the 1st place.
Also UK acquires an airlaunched Tactical capability to match the “Force de Disuasssion”. Storm Shadow or even ASMP in the short term but a joint missile in the long term.

Pretty sure my hat is safe.

That’s very true though that question did make me speculate if a missile that’s extremely fast early on but slowing as it gets nearer to a target to improve tracking and manouversbility at say present Meteor level just might be very useful if the overall range starts to get to 300+ miles. As Air to air missiles of Meteor quality are getting closer to that mark and much improved over previous generations I do wonder if at some stage ram/scramjet missiles with throttle-ability might try such a trick to perfect their potential and lethality at those ranges.

Yes, this was the premise behind Meteor’s design. Where the ramjet can be throttled. The throttling is determined by how far and fast the target is moving. If the target is over x distance and at y speed. The missile will throttle back, so has a longer portion of the cruise phase under power. If it has any fuel left over it can throttle up again. However, if the target is close. The missile can chose to maintain full power and close with the target in the shortest time.

There is train of thought, that it may be better to do the cruise phase as fast as possible. Where it gets threat updates from the parent aircraft. Then as you say slow down, to enable the missile to outmanoeuvre the target. The thought is that if you significantly reduce the time to target, the target has less opportunity to reply in kind.