The United Kingdom is accelerating its efforts to develop a homegrown hypersonic missile, aiming to keep pace with global powers like China, Russia, and the United States.
The goal is to have the missile operational by 2030 as part of a broader strategy to bolster the country’s defence capabilities.
In a recent update, Lord Coaker, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, outlined the UK’s progress in hypersonic technology, highlighting the nation’s leadership role in this critical area. “The UK is demonstrating its leadership in the global hypersonic arena by active participation in the AUKUS Pillar 2 Advanced Capability Partnership,” he said. The UK has been a key player in advancing capability development alongside its AUKUS allies since the initiative began in 2022.
The Ministry of Defence has established a dedicated programme team, known as Team Hypersonics (UK), to focus on creating a sovereign hypersonic capability.
“Building on previous research and development, the MOD has established a Programme Team – Team Hypersonics (UK) – to cohere Ministry of Defence, industry and academia around the development of a sovereign hypersonic capability,” Coaker explained.
Central to this effort is the Hypersonic Technologies and Capability Development Framework (HTCDF), a £1 billion initiative designed to support the phased development of this cutting-edge technology. “Team Hypersonics (UK) has established the Hypersonic Technologies and Capability Development Framework (HTCDF),” Coaker said, adding that the framework involves 90 suppliers, including defence contractors, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and academic institutions.
The UK’s hypersonic missile is expected to reach speeds of over Mach 5—five times the speed of sound—enabling it to potentially evade modern air defence systems due to its speed and manoeuvrability. This development is seen as crucial for maintaining the UK’s strategic deterrence in an increasingly competitive global security landscape.
Coaker also noted that testing of key technologies, such as a new hypersonic propulsion system, is already underway.
“With these enablers in place, the testing of critical sovereign-designed and manufactured missile sub-system technologies continues, including a novel hypersonic propulsion system,” he said. Several invitations to tender have been issued to further develop these technologies, paving the way for technical demonstrators and eventually a fully operational missile.
While the exact launch platform for the hypersonic missile has yet to be determined, options include deployment from land, fighter jets, or warships.
The Ministry of Defence has provided few details due to the sensitive nature of the project, but a spokesperson confirmed, “We are pursuing hypersonic technologies to further develop UK sovereign advanced capabilities. We continue to invest in our equipment to meet current and future threats.”
Calling Russia a global power is a stretch. Doubly so given we’ve seen exactly how effective Zircon is (namely, not at all).
Both Russia and China are duplicitous and image-obsessed, all the hype around hypersonic wunderwaffes seems extremely overblown. Reminds me of the panic around the MiG-25
Very valid point
Yes, but the panic over the MIG-25 did pave the way for the F-15, so if this leads to the UK developing and hopefully fielding hypersonic weapons, then maybe a little panic isn’t such a bad thing after all
Agreed!
Indeed and often the ‘panic’ is manipulated and magnified to encourage that very response. Often without it however nothing is done till there is something very much in existence to really panic over. Which makes it too often too late.
Panic over the Germans getting the A bomb directly led to British studies (using German emigre mathematicians ironically) to determine its viability which was the first to show actual practicality started an emergency programme which ended up through demonstrating those scientific practicalities to American scientists and politicians creation of the Manhattan project. Considering Germany was indeed well ahead pre war that ‘panic’ proved very important.
On the flip side the same panic bankrupted the USSR, perhaps there’s a lesson there also.
I suppose that’s entirely down to the ability to end all life on Earth with its huge ageing, poorly maintained nuclear arsenal.
Certainly the Zircon and Kinzhal appear only faster versions of older Xoviet designs and relatively dumb and have to slow down below Hypersonic speeds in the terminal phase where they can be taken out similarly to other missiles that are supersonic so far from a wonder weapon just serial upgrades to long pre existing weapons. Now Avangard is on paper more advanced with similar capabilities to US missile developments. But all we are is what we are told by Russian propaganda and what little can be garnered from Western sources. We had the same hype with the previous two so even this weapon may be far from what is being claimed. Either way US weapons once fully deployed will for the most part far superior and varied. The first examples are due to be deployed very soon in Europe as a part of wider missile deployment to test viability.
All true, but presumption is the mother of all fuckups. Overestimate your enemy and one will win every time.
And thats why Russia is using free fall bombs with drone fins attached to hit targets, I dont really think is much of a worry.
Those glide bombs are proving very effective.
Sadly yes, doing what they need in the numbers game although with the increase in capacity of the Ukrainian air force they may struggle to deploy them as effectively with the limited range.
I would imagine that the range of such a missile would surely be the reckoning for whether land/sea/air deployment. More land is available than our rather paltry aircraft/ships availability.
Land-based weapons would need transport, basing, launch systems, and more troops to man the batteries. Air- and ship-launched weapons are generally easier to slot into existing support structures.
As you say, range will be an important factor, but realistically the UK has no requirement over for a land system over a naval/air weapon.
Most hypersonics are just glide vehicles strapped to a rocket and launching those has pretty much been perfected with a small team being able to deploy remotely set up and launch various locations. With dispersal of these systems being a very effective tactic to ensure weapons don’t get detected. UK has just a handful of ships and a potential enemy knows where these are at any point in time. So I wouldn’t discount the option.
“A potential enemy knows where these are at any point in time.”
That’s more than a bit of an exaggeration. Knowing where a ship is during peace time, where it’s publicised what ports they’re visiting and transponders are active, is wildly different to trying to track a modern warship in a conflict area.
A ship moving at 30 knots could be anywhere within a ~2800nm area in an hour, and be deployed anywhere in the word. A land-based system needs to be shipped to a firing position in advance of any likely conflict, unless the Europeans decide to forcefully bring us back to the EU or that Chinese task group nearby wants to commit suicide.
There’s pros and cons to each system Himars has done very well evading the enemy. US Army has land based LAM so that pretty much reinforces that theirs benefits to have a land based launch platform.
You are aware that mk41 can’t launch a hypersonic missile with any range US has design a new launch tube for hypersonics and is fitting these to Zumwalt. Hypersonics you’re going need a lot of energy = fuel = big missile.
The US army has every toy under the sun, because they can afford to do so. Meanwhile, we don’t have the budget for sufficient numbers of the basics, let alone widespread deployment of hypersonics.
I’m not saying there aren’t advantages to a land system, simply that a naval/air system aligns better with our situation.
The larger tubes on the Zumwalt aren’t because they’re being fitted with a hypersonic missile; they’re for the Convention Prompt Strike weapon aiming to hit anywhere in the entire world in under an hour. That obviously requires a colossal weapon, but that’s not representative of all hypersonics. The SM-3 is a hypersonic weapon, for instance, which is obviously Mk41-launched.
None of which is to say you’re definitely wrong; its entirely possible we fail to deliver a practical hypersonic weapon that’s Mk41-compliant. However, the preference will definitely be for that compliance.
If missiles are fired towards the UK we have virtually nothing to stop them. Surely the best place for these missiles would be land, sea and air. Why limit their use to one platform?
This is an offensive weapon, not an air defence system. In a world of unlimited budgets and manpower, of course it would be preferable to have a full triad, but that’s not what we’ve got.
I wonder if the novel propulsion system could be a spin-off from Reaction Engine’s Sabre project?
That occurred to me as well. Especially as Reaction Engines are undertaking work on DARPA contracts… (according to Reaction Engine Website).
Cheers CR
My thought too, I read on their website some months back some reference to missile propulsion being an early/first potential use of their full engine technology once fully developed. That said Sabfe is quite a complex and one suspects will be an expensive expensive engine compared to Ram/Scramjets so though on paper an excellent choice in terms of cost probably a somewhat wasteful exploitation. However Sabre is a surface to Orbit design for a Space Plane so a lot of that capability may not be required for a missile so might be a much simplified variation.
Such an engine (simply the nature of it) would be of much greater potential from surface launches than air launch I would say especially taking in that extra cost, simply because it’s far easier to exploit more basic ram/scram jets from a fast flying launch platform than from the ground in terms of providing that essential required boost and the air breathing efficiency of a Sabre type engine is thus far less beneficial.
I would guess there’s potential for longer range with a Sabre engine for a given size of missile. Hypersonic flight generates a lot of heat which plays towards Sabre’s party trick of heat disposal.
I saw a release of reaction engines Yesterday claiming they paired some RR jet engine with their precooler and got a Mach 3.5 output.
That seems like a game changer to me.
Assuming Sabre is more expensive than Ramjet/Scramjet, then their proposal for a Sabre powered hypersonic UAS makes sense, especially if coupled with smaller hypersonic weapons for the last leg.
Could probably even use unpowered guided munitions, if a release mechanism were to be made reliable enough.
I imagine the toss distance from Mach 8 and 100,000 feet is quite significant.
They got it to function in Mach 3.5 conditions, which isn’t quite the same thing, but that does seem to be the way Reaction Engines is going.
Having developed an incredibly powerful heat exchanger, they have realised that it has applications far beyond SABRE.
Apparently some of the cooling tech is finding its way into Tempest.
The obvious use is compressor blade cooling where cooler air is passed through the blade to cool it. If you can drop the temperature of that air you can run the engine hotter, blades themselves could also be cheaper as they’re having to use more exotic materials to withstand the temperatures in newer engines, so increasing the cooling they could revert to more traditional blade materials. There also potential to reduce IR signature as part of the stealth aspect , mixing precooled air with hot exhaust
Another option could be to simply attach the heat exchanger around the outside of the compressor. Less pipework and fewer moving parts to have a similar effect using a more powerful cooling system. Also has more crossover with their normal work on ramjets.
Good point. I’d do both as the core of the engine is the hotest bleeding of some of cooled air to the blades would help. So it’s cooled both ways.
So will the Franco-British Future Cruise Missile be hypersonic instead of stealthy and subsonic (the French want the former, we want the latter but that seems an outdated approach now)? Will it build off this project or will the work done on the cruise missile feed into this?
Also, saying a hypersonic missile is expected to be Mach 5+ is rather redundant…
There will be two different Missile systems.
… and I can’t as things stand either of them feeding into the AUKUS orientated hypersonic work (which this seems linked to) as AUKUS is very much orientated around ITAR relief between the signees of which of course France is not included so would be ex lauded from any such technology cross fertilization.
Equally the first of the two Anglo/French missiles, ie the land attack version is almost certainly based on existing French Scalp enhancements that they brought into service in recent years and is thus subsonic or perhaps might be low supersonic but certainly NOT hypersonic. The far later anti ship missile seems to be a new design simply by the fact it will become operational far later.so is far less easy to predict. It’s possible I guess that UK developments that could be part of this hypersonic research programme could feed into the Anglo French anti ship missile too. Indeed if that missile is to be high speed and manoeuvrable, thus with considerable potential overlaps, it seems difficult to think such research would be repeated totally separately in the UK but without changes to AUKUS agreements only UK specific research elements (or potentially Australian) could feed into it. No doubt complex structures will thus be organised to enable flexibility where possible.
I am quite sure than the hypersonic missile developed together will continue. This is not for land operations. This is for sea operations. We developed VMax and did many exchanges with US Navy. Interests of the Marine Nationale is not to operate alone. It is to secure sea lines, many of which go from and to USA, with Royal Navy. I don’t see this programme, as important as the meteor, being postponed.
It’s interesting though when you consider the physics. Gut feel would tell you hypersonic to attacked fixed location strategic land locations, radars, airbases, marine ports, storage facilities, vessels alongside etc..while the slower, but highly manoeuvrable nonhypersonic cruise missile would cope better with manoeuvering targets at sea. If a hypersonic can take out a manoeuvrable target at Sea then fixed targets on land shouldn’t be an issue. Both would be equally well defended…..in which case why bother with the cruise ?
Hypersonique = expensive = useful for High Value Targets and heavily defended one => Ships
Stealth = subsonic = cheap = needed for a lot of targets => land usage
The US is going with stealthy and subsonic for alot of its missiles
No.
There are 2 missiles. 1 subsonic, stealthy and long ranged. The other is high supersonic, medium ranged with some LO shaping.
Usually I’d be happy about the UK developing a Sovereign capability in high end tech. But the time has come when we need to accept that we can’t afford to go it alone on things like this. I know some work was done years ago but we are years behind the curve on this than other countries now.
Other than France who are going alone (quell surprise).
US, Japan, Germany, Norway and Australia to name a few are all now tying up into collaborative projects so we should be joining one of those ?
In fact if anyone thinks about the other Tiers of the AUKUS Treaty the US/AUS project would be the obvious one to join, they are 15 years into it.
Failing that Norway and Germany are working in partnership on a Hypersonic Missile to compliment the NSM and it includes MBDA.
One thing that is becoming obvious over the last few years the delineation between various types of missiles is getting very blury.
Airborne missiles being adapted to ground launched, ship passed SAM becoming airborne it’s just all merging together.
There is a lot to think about before spending a Billion £’s.
I agree.
There are many debates about should we be spending more money getting the basics right or more on new shinies. Because politicians love announcing the new and shiny, it tends to be that we overspend there. AUKUS Pillar 2 is very much about that. Obviously we have to do both, but arguably we should be thinking more about the bread and butter defence outputs than we do. This particular bit of kit doesn’t need to be sovereign and perhaps new money would be better spent elsewhere.
Agree entirely. If we were spending 4% or 5% of GDP on defence, we might be able to afford such expensive new weapons.
We are not, we are spending half that, 2.07%, and cannot afford the bread and butter replacement of older and near-obsolete kit. The question then is, what is the MOD proposing to run down or cut to pay for another grandiose shiny toys project? We already have Tempest on the horizon, which is going to be extremely expensive, even split between 3 partners, and AUKUS, which will be another costly venture. More urgent than hypersonis attack missiles, we should be looking at a UK air defence missile system, where we currently have nothing defending the home base.
Certainly let us develop our hypersonic technology to the point where we have something to offer in a multi-national programme. But we need to face facts, we are a medium weight power with a limited defence budget and very inadequate force levels. They are only going to get smaller and even more inadequate if more money is siphoned off into mega-expensive shiny toys extravaganzas.
Don’t worry, free Bus passes will be axed next, that should help pay the bills. 😐
Tend to agree with most of that. Just a couple things however, the whole waverider concept inherent in glide bodies evolved from UK research in the 60s and 70s. It was mostly done in Universities and as such unless we don’t want to finance Universities doing such pure research it’s the sort of thing that gets studied in that environment and then goes on if successful into industry and to the benefit of UK plc.
It’s not all implicitly a cost to Govt finances beyond decisions on grants to specific projects to further utilise such research, clearly it’s far more nuanced on the cost/benefit scale. But it’s how we got blue lasers and the most efficient electric motors in th3 World. That waverider concept research (like blue lasers) was not utilised here in Britain but was further developed in the US. But that pure research undoubtedly helped the UK at various levels and gave us a knowledge base for further research in other projects. It feeds into wider opportunities for instance, this research could be beneficial to companies as far different as Deep Mind who’s AIs work closely with industry developing new materials and understanding fluid dynamics to Reaction Engines which is deeply involved in hypersonic performance, power plants and cooling and their potential customers too in bringing those concepts into existence.
Not long ago Space rockets were far too costly to consider developing (though we are alone in abolishing such a capacity), now it’s relatively cheap to do so as technology and maturity advanced. People see hypersonics as we did rockets 20 to 30 years ago but with pure research comes advances that make it far more attainable to the extent that small Canadian and New Zealand companies are building prototype hypersonic aircraft as well as better financed US companies. We must remember hypersonic flight isn’t a fantastical science fiction project, it’s been happening for decades just in rather unsophisticated ways, much of it like Russian missiles are still of that nature fundamentally and even Starstreak reaches near Mach 4 speeds and can still hit targets despite being decades old, its competitor Thunderbolt was even faster. So while Hypersonic speeds have a sound barrier type mystique I don’t think getting there is as complex or in time as expensive as some believe especially if we are looking a decade ahead. After all simpler such missiles only have to survive minutes and new technologies are solving guidance problems the main bugbear and the slowing down option in the terminal stage is always still an option.
I do agree though beyond the research stage development of such missiles should be a multi nation programme and I think they will. I think we may be misinterpreting the ‘UK sovereign’ capability. We retain military aircraft sovereign capability but it doesn’t mean we are building Tempest on our own. The nuance is important.
Good post, so often the benefit of sovereign intellectual property is overlooked. Its what can ensure the UK is a supplier selling stuff and not a customer buying it in.
Have you heard of Aster 30? Recently, the very missile used on your frigates, worked quite well in the land version to allegedly intercept Kinzal.
Why make a new Aster?
Maybe it’s an evolution of Aster and the tech involved might dovetail into whatever SAM /ABM system comes after Aster? Agree with you and others here,why land Aster is not employed in the UK to some degree of protection for ports, bases, key infrastructure and shared inventories with the RN. It’s so bloody obvious and Sky Sabre, CAMM MR seems to be taking forever. No real sense of urgency in the UK while on the continent Italy and France have just ordered additional Aster, 800 units between them I think. Other countries ordering Patriot and NASAMs. Hope nothing blows up soon. Key assets (and basically the whole country) totally exposed to air and sub sea threats. Deterrence, article 5 and blue sky dreaming won’t stop missiles getting through if things get hot. Sorry, my rant.
At some point hypersonics will become bread and butter.
The reality is that we have always had a huge slice of the tech from work done decades ago in a whole load of projects.
It may be that we are closer than others might think to producing a steerable hypersonic.
Totally agree in ten years it simply won’t be a particularly novel concept we are thinking behind the curve here and I very much doubt since we worked on the waverider concept all those decades ago that even though we produced no solid physical from it that research has moved on in related research since. Indeed many of our experts on both this and other related projects continued work on it in the States. Creating a hypersonic missile is not that difficult creating a gliding body or a missile that offers something beyond that speed that adds advantage is the more difficult bit and its research of this nature that determines where that goes and likelihood of success at acceptable cost.
I totally agree with you here. The US is doing wonderful things with the Standard Missile (well named) which as new versions develop is pretty much becoming a universally employed missile to accompany AMRAAM itself developed into variations far wider than its initial deployment. I suspect their new longer range gradual replacement will do the same thing. They seem to be developing a very widely exploited two missile base from which Air, Sea and Land systems develop from. One short/medium and the other medium/long range base designs. We seem not to be obviously taking this route.
We have developed an emergency ASRAAM ground launched variant for Ukraine but we seem to prefer ‘horses for courses’ approach whereby our long range air launched missile is Meteor but we go for one presumes cheaper CAAM for ship/land use and are now developing longer range versions of that. Meteor was considered for a ground launched version but never (or at least so far) not developed further. Then of course we have senate strike missiles which Standard can do too now thus adding considerable flexibility to the US Navy and certainly gives more potential punch from limited missile silos. Now my knowledge gets very limited beyond this so can’t make real judgements about these two approaches though one might have thought for Britain designing a missile to be used as widely as possible might be more crucial than for a far richer and bigger user than the USA. Or is the technology to make missile with such diverse flexibility out of our reach? Or is there more overlap with our missiles than there superficially seems?
Sadly the UK missile industry has been notoriously bad at exploiting extant missile technology. The past Governments have also had a hand in this. As they keep cancelling promising projects, when defence cuts are needed. This is I believe down to risk aversion within the industry. There is none of the fail fast – learn fast approach.
ASRAAM surface launch came about from the Government asking MBDA UK what it could do to give Ukraine a viable air defence system in the shortest amount of time and at a low cost. Ideally we would have given them Sky Sabre. But this was taking too long to put together.
Instead using a Supacat HMT, a fixed elevation “turret”, mounting a set of ex-Tornado launch rails. Plus using a standard EO turret. Enabled ASRAAM to be used as a surface launched missile and given Ukraine a CV pretty effective short range air defence system.
Could it be made better, yes quite easily. Starting with a fully trainable turret, that mounts at least four launch rails. The current EO turret is adequate for close range search and tracking. But the system would really need a radar for longer distance searching.
There are also other missiles that could be exploited or have their target set expanded. One of which is Brimstone. This is a Mach 1.5 capable missile that predominantly uses an active radar for target searching and tracking. Therefore why could it not be used against some of the slower moving air targets such as helicopters and drones?
The second missile that could be reused for other targets is Meteor. Apart from Spear-3, MBDA don’t have a dedicated anti-radiation missile that can compete with HARM. With a better radar receiver and including a GPS based inertial navigation system. Meteor we punks have a significant range and time to target advantage over HARM. So is there a need for a high speed anti-radiation missile? Yes, as Spear-3 is too slow for reactive pop-up threats, especially if you’re flying something like a Typhoon.
Sorry, “Meteor we punks…”? Slang? Usually able to fill in, but no joy on this occasion. 🤔
Ha ha. Should be: “Meteor will still have….”
Thinking on it some more. I would say both Meteor and HARM will be about equal against close emitters that “pop up” within 30km. After this Meteor’s ramjet engine gives it an advantage, the further the target is from the launch aircraft.
So are you suggesting a sort of British SiAW, based on Meteor? A SPEAR seeker kit with RWR inside a pointy nosecone on the front of the ramjet kit?
Would it also be a good idea to include side strakes, a bit like SiAW, to extend the range?
That would be at the expense of maneuverability but given Meteor is an atmospheric weapon probably still help.
Failing that, moving the ramjets intakes to the side might have a similar effect aerodynamically.
Then, would there be a way to retain a measure of AA capability? Even if the missile is less maneuverable than standard Meteor, if it is optimised for long range then would it still makes sense for the modern fashion for AWACS sniping (unsporting though it is)?
Yes, it would be highly beneficial for both our Typhoons and F35s to have a high supersonic multirole missile, that can be used on a number of targets, both air and ground, perhaps even surface vessels. The caveat is that it must still be capable of fitting into the F35B weapons bays.
Meteor does have a problem aerodynamically due to its boxy air intakes. They don’t make the missile very aerodynamic, so its glide ratio when the ramjet has used up all its fuel is not great, especially when compared to other sleeker solid rocket based missiles such as AMRAAM. Adding strakes will add more drag, thereby making the fuel burn slightly worse. But they will generate lift which will enhance range. So there is a trade off.
The other option is to redesign Meteor with a wider singular air intake, similar to the Su-75 Checkmate’s. Where it has a increased intake area, but not a dramatically increased external surface area. Depending on the “mouth’s” placement, it will dictate how manoeuvrable the missile could be. As there will be certain manoeuvres that could block off some of the airflow in to the intake. Which will make the missile’s flight control software slightly more complicated.
However, the potential to add more air could be used to raise the terminal speed of the missile. We are definitely talking Mach 5ish (probably plus) potential. Converting the variable ducted rocket (ramjet) to a scramjet could also be doable. By using variable ramps in the intake to remove the intake restriction needed for a ramjet. Thereby allowing a supersonic airflow through the intake. But that will cost a heap with development costs. So lets for now keep it a ramjet, where traditionally ramjets can reach Mach 6 to 6.5 if pushed.
But if we then turn Meteor into a hypersonic (Mach 5+) missile. It will need protecting against the elevated temperatures when travelling at these speeds. Which could actually be achieved fairly cheaply by using an ablative coating, if we consider the flight time to be about 2 to 5 minutes. The downside is that it will need thorough post flight checking and maintenance to maintain the integrity of the coating.
Perhaps one of the other issues is Meteor’s warhead. it is currently a simple blast fragmentary warhead. This will need to change to a similar warhead as used by Brimstone, so a multi-programmable tandem warhead. If the Stand in Attack Weapon (SiAW) based on HARM uses a 68kg warhead. Then Meteor’s will also likely need increasing in weight to be more effective against a broader range of targets. But that will be at the expense of the fuel volume. As some space will need to be found.
There will be a number of compromises to make a multi-role Meteor. But I think the trade-offs would definitely be worth it. The balance between adding a larger singular air intake along with mid-body strakes will need careful modelling to get the best result. Especially as it will potentially increase the missile’s overall terminal speed to hypersonic speeds. One crucial factor that will improve is the time to target. Which might be more important than extending the range. Though with more oomph the missile can get to a higher altitude more quickly, throttle back and cruise possibly further due to the strakes. Possibly leaving enough fuel for the terminal phase.
Thanks for the explanation.
Would this version of Meteor (presumably an entirely new weapon based on the core airframe) still retain part of its anti-air capability?
Would an air-launched version of MBDA’s new Land Precision Strike design from Farnborough do a similar job? If you took off what looks like the large and wide booster, it might just fit in an F35 (base GMLRS pod is 4m long and Meteor is 3.6m, this has folding fins).
Ground launched with a booster it has a range of “80+km” and so from an aircraft at altitude that would probably be extended significantly.
You would sacrifice some range relative to a Meteor derivative and probably some speed as well (GMLRS impacts at M2.5 but this would probably be slower, about M1.8 like Brimstone, and more like a cruise missile), but as it is a surface artillery weapon, would be much cheaper than a converted Meteor.
The best way to think about the land precision strike missile (LPS), is to think about a MLRS rocket with Brimstone strapped to the top. Its requirement was created by the Army for a deep fires weapon, that has the capabilities of Brimstone, ie the ability to identify and attack a moving target at range. However like the current Brimstone, it can be used against other targets, such as buildings, artillery etc.
From what images I’ve seen, the tail fins on the LPS weapon are similar to Brimstone’s. Which are a bit small for engaging highly maneuvering targets, such as a fighter aircraft. Slower targets such as helicopters and drones should be doable. It will be interesting to see what flight modes the rocket/missile has, eg ballistic, quasi-ballistic or can it following a ballistic launch fly at low level towards its target (though with a much reduced range)?
My thoughts for the Meteor multi-role weapon in air to ground use, is that it would be predominantly be used against air defence systems. But have the capability to go after similar targets to Brimstone. Though using a Meteor against a BMP, is probably a bit OTT. But if there’s no other option, fair enough, you use what’s to hand. The warhead will be relatively small (<50kg), so it wouldn’t be used to knock down a bridge for example. Though it would be pretty effective to take out a railway line. Similarly like Spear-3, it should be able to map a target using its active radar and determine key areas to attack.
Could Meteor multi-role be used against air targets, yes most definitely. The priority targets would still be key enablers such as AEW, ISTAR and aerial tankers. Like I said previously the designers will need to balance the speed versus range issue. But because it’s a throttleable ramjet, it can slow down and conserve its fuel to extend the range, especially with the strakes adding lift. It could also be used against fighter aircraft. The strakes will allow it to turn tighter. This would normally bleed off a lot of energy doing consecutive tight turns. But if the ramjet is still operating, it will compensate for the lost energy.
I would fully expect the air to air and ground range to be at least 125km. But by using careful management of its speed and altitude, the range could be significantly more.
Due the wide target set and the ability to pick and choose where to hit a target. Along with a sensitive wide band receiver. This weapon won’t be cheap. But it would mean an aircraft tasked with EW and DEAD, would have a weapon than could be used on both air threats and surface threats. For example one of our F35s following a successful Spear-3 mission. Is faced with a pop-up SAM radar. It could now use a multi-role Meteor, to take out the SAM radar.
Hmm… Do you work for MBDA or one of the other companies? You certainly know a lot about their products.
The “80km Brimstone” thing is exactly why I suggested LPS for air launch. The main body is supposed to have the same diameter as Brimstone or Spear but is nearly twice as long. It has wings, unlike Brimstone, so may function more like a cruise missile.
I have the MBDA press release image with me, and it looks like all of the fins would have to fold inside the diameter in order to launch from a MLRS tube. That means that in every way apart from length the missile has the same footprint as a Spear: It should be possible to fit two of them side by side in an F35 payload bay in the same way 4 Spear can fit, along with the extra Meteor.
So in the end we get a similar product to a air to ground meteor (a mach 3+, 100km+ AGM) but instead of converting a supersonic missile to air to ground, we produce a sort of supersonic Spear.
I think both missiles are viable. No GMLRS-sized and budgeted missile will compete for range and speed with a Meteor, but equally there are, as you say, targets not worth wasting an expensive missile on that are worth the cheaper option.
Why would the Uk bother with ground launched ASRAAM as a lash up if we had already developed and deployed the superior ASRAAM based CAMM…..
Ukraine got ground launched ASRAAM only because of timing…Asraam Block V and earlier were being retired…so there was a ready stock of missiles that were going spare…
Meteor has been looked at by MBDA and RAF as an ARM, suspect this was part of JNAAM with the AESA seeker, but a capability is likely to be in place on Meteor MLU…
We wouldn’t use the Ukrainian ASRAAM solution in its current guise. Though I can think of at least two reasons to use ASRAAM over CAMM for a ground based air defence system. The first is mobility. Currently CAMM in its environmentally sealed launcher. Must be raised vertically for launching. Therefore the vehicle it is mounted to must stop. But it must also level itself before it’s ready for firing, which all takes time.
ASRAAM on a trainable launcher does not need to be leveled or launched vertically. So it can be fired on the move. This would be crucial when protecting a convoy or just traveling to a new waypoint and defending against a pop-up threat.
The main downside is that the ASRAAM is out in all weathers. Plus the seeker would be constantly in the sunlight during daylight hours. Which could saturate the sensor. Normally the seeker is only unshielded when the aircraft the missile is fitted to is flying. All other times it is covered.
The second reason is sort of linked to the first reason. Where it comes to complimenting or replacing Stormer and HVM. At the moment Russia with its Ka-52 and the AT-16 Vikhr ATGM has a range advantage over both MANPADS and VSHORAD. Where MANPADS in general top out at 5km, whereas Starstreak HVM used by the Stormer is around 8km. The AT-16 has a published range of 10 to 12km. Though Ukraine have said they’ve being used as far back as 15km. ASRAAM nicely fills this gap, as it can reach out to around 20km from a surface launch. In this context, ASRAAM would merge the definition between VSHORAD and SHORAD. Where it can be used for both types of threat scenario.
Although modifications would be needed to mount ASRAAM to the Storner’s turret. The Storner’s sensors can be used for giving ASRAAM the target acquisition data it requires. Though it might be tricky trying to fit a couple of spare ASRAAMs inside the vehicle! Having it mounted on Stormer would let the system remain purely passive in an engagement. Although it could be linked up to a Giraffe radar via data-link.
CAMM used by Sky Sabre, will have a better shelf life and be better environmentally protected in its sealed launcher. The active radar gives it constant all weather capabilities. It uses lock on after launch so doesn’t need to initially see the target. As the data link will give it intercept and steering commands. Which then raises a number of questions. Could the CAMM launcher be mounted on a trainable turret, so that the missile is launched closer to horizontal? Can the tail mounted reaction jets be turned off, as these wouldn’t be needed for a horizontal launch?
The Ukrainian ASRAAM surface launch system, is purely a stop gap to meet an urgent requirement. Will it be further developed? There is potential, but ASRAAM will need much better protection from a canister to prolong its shelf life and shield its sensor.
Afternoon Davey, Hope that the ASRAAM-Supacat launcher can be developed a bit, even adopted by the UK and could even be on a naval mount. Might be seen to be competing with CAMM though. Has the UK looked at NASAM as that might take Meteor and ASRAAM?
Damn, that would be a fun GBAD system.
UKASAM?
Where did you find that France will go on hypersonic missile alone? We do a glider, the V Max, and it is not even alone..
France is developing the ASMP-A replacement which will be hypersonic…its a purely French affair…
True, but not the same missile as the anti shipping variant. The nuclear strike force never use the same missile as conventional forces, for a proper understanding of our nuclear grammar. Missiles developed with UK are not part of the deterrent force. They are linked to naval power projection in which I am glad we work together since we have similar views. If not similar, very close one. We are very happy to manœuvre with the Royal Navy, a force we respect and trust.
Don’t quite see how this fits in with FC/ASW which is apparently subsonic.
Will this new hypersonic cruise missile quickly supplant the latter if it’s being accelerated?
There are two FC/ASW products. One is conceptually souped up Storm Shadow, Future cruise, high subsonic. The other is Anti-Ship supersonic or hypersonic.
I thought previous information was subsonic land attack for 2028 and supersonic antiship for 2034. Even if this hypersonic is instead of the supersonic antiship I dont know how they are planning to make it 4 years earlier
Subsonic air 2028, supersonic air 2030, subsonic ship-launched 2032, supersonic ship-launched 2034, IIRC.
All subject to seemingly arbitrary delays.
Your dates are mixed up….
Subsonic ship launch is 2028
Subsonic air launch is 2030 (dependent on integration)
Supersonic anti-ship is 2034…its not clear if that is surface or air launched however…
Oh, ship launch is first?
I’d assumed Typhoon launch would be easier to do.
Those numbers do seem more realistic, though.
Ties in with what I say elsewhere this is research into ‘the possible’ and will determine viability and value of potential weapons. The ‘lesser’ end of hypersonic missiles could certainly be produced by around 2030 (anticipating some delay mind) what form they might take is the real question and would to achieve that date have considerable commonality with an existing weapon no doubt. I’m sure if the motivation were there Meteor or other existing designs could be so upgraded if necessity dictated it, it’s just any cost/benefit to be considered on such weapons. Probably pointless extending Meteor’s range for example much more than its present considerable reach, without a linked uptick in speed because any target will be long gone if it can be detected. The US is researching long rage hypersonic air to air missiles I understand with rotary detonation rocket motors and the Russians have had them for years though their usefulness is still in doubt. Going hypersonic is the easy part doing so with purpose and within cost/benefit parameters is the real test. For example Meteor is lethal because its throttle-ability means its still powered in its terminal stage ii much of its range, getting there faster would be an advantage yes but not at the.cost of manoeuvrability at that stage probably.
Apologies, am somewhat confused. Is the UK actually simultaneously conducting a sovereign program re hypersonic missiles, participating in the AUKUS Pillar II initiative, and potentially, cooperating w/ the French on a hypersonic variant of FC/ASW? Hopefully, someone is coordinating these efforts/programmes to avoid unnecessary overlap and duplication of effort. If not, this could prove to be an intuitively obvious reason why 2+% of GDP does not cover the waterfront of defence requirements. 🤔😳😉
I believe we are cooperating with the French on a high supersonic, which the French would rather was hypersonic. What is happening with AUKUS pillar 2 and this £bn initiative, I don’t know. This is the first time I’ve read about a sovereign hypersonic capability.
Actually relieved not to be the only one lost at sea re this topic. 🙃😏
Indeed I write more about that and possible overlap in the latter in an earlier contribution if Challenger wishes to read it so won’t repeat it here.
Lol. If you accelerate a hypersonic missile what’s next? Speed of light? Warp speed? Hyperspace?
Seems to be a bit daft. And a lot of money.
We’ll end up with one warship, one fighter, one super-soldier but with all the latest eye wateringly expensive kit(FFBNW at least) & drones. I do think we need adequate amounts of basic equipment & troops before fights of fantasy.
Sorry but some of you guys sound like those who even in the thirties argued against monoplane fighters as too complex and expensive oh and couldn’t out turn a biplane in a dogfight. The rest is history. The same argument persisted around the introduction of the jet engine that very nearly drove Whittle out of the project pre war.
Unless you can create accurate models and wargame the outcomes, you are left to guess what’s the right tech to pursue with limited cash. I’m not saying we can’t get hypersonics, I’m saying there are better things to spend money on.
If you can tell me why there’s a step change in effectiveness going fron Mach 4 to Mach 6 missiles, I might change my mind.
Then we would end up doing nothing, waiting for others to develop it, test it, then we buy it. Another point if you understand how it works you’ll also understand how to counter it.
Hypersonic actually refer to where flight dynamic changes so traveling at sea level at mach 5 at 20degrees C is where this happens.
Mach 6 you get speed of 2 km/second so with a 35 km radar horizon on a ship facing a Mach 6 hypersonic you get 17.5 seconds to determine the threat, launch and intercept . But you need to hit the target further out as the kinetic energy of even small piece of debris can cause a lot of damage so you have even less time.
Mach 4 you get 25 seconds to react but can afford to hit the target closer to ship as the debris has less kinetic energy.
Its the whole point of RnD have an idea nature it, test it, it fails disregard it or branch off it.
Future manned combat aircraft will rely on stealth to defeat SAM defences. Whilst a stealth aircraft can fly supersonically, even with super cruise, fuel consumption means it will mostly fly at sub sonic speeds. Logically, a stealthy, sub sonic cruise missile will be even harder for ground defences to detect and intercept. So the long range version being developed as part of the two missile FCASW programme shouldn’t need hypersonic speed to penetrate defences.
Curious that the long range subsonic variant is supposed to be in service by 2028, with the new hypersonic missile only 2 years behind.
We already have the tech to make ballistic missiles that are already hypersonic, sometimes very high hypersonic.
Indeed – Mach 20, making interception extremely difficult with US GBAD failing more often than not. The advantage claimed for hypersonics is their greater ability to manouevre, making interception even more doubtful. But at hypersonic speeds, manouevreability is quite limited. As another post reminds, the Mach 3 Mig25 essentially flew straight.
That’s what some people can’t get their heads around it’s something that has in its base form been common for many decades it’s just a matter now of going beyond the base we are familiar with and in this space some hypersonic vehicles are more advanced and complex and capable than others depending upon the envelope and capability required. But Everything is complex and expensive in the early stages if we use that as the reason for not pursuing research then nothing will be pursued because we are too blind to the future potential and cost efficiencies to be gained from it, you need research to get there after all. Too often this Country, unlike our Victorian forbears have stood back and watched others see and exploit that potential for their own benefit or allow our own research to be exploited by others who were willing to invest in it where we weren’t and from who we then have to buy it.
we’ve also seen in russia that storm shadows have no problems getting through russian air defense- as well as ATACMs which are older semi-ballistic missiles. the reason russia and china developed hypersonics is because they need to- patriot and AEGIS is far superior to anything those countries have. the USAF for years has preferred smaller, more affordable stealth cruise missiles and anti ship missiles. its almost like they knew what they were doing! congress is pretty much forcing them to spend on hypersonics now because the media has the people and congress convinced that china and russia would absolutely roll over the US with their hypersonic wunderwaffe- and that the US is so far behind them (lets forget the US had the mach 10 guided nike sprint missile 50 years ago). so now the US is getting a token force of hypersonics, but they’re just getting a tiny force for targets of opportunity. there are very few cases where you ‘need’ a hypersonic.
There are many US hypersonic programmes. They have their place, yes I suspect high value targets will be the prime use case but it would be madness not to possess them. And only when you have them can you truly evaluate their true potential especially as they are further developed. If 2nd or 3rd gen versions are substantially superior exploiting new understanding, technologies and advances we cannot fully anticipate then by rejecting their value now then you have not created the ground work in which to build those true ‘wonder weapons’. After all no one truly anticipated the effects of drones on warfare till it happened. The ones they thought might be the true value ones ironically have not been. You need to be in the game to win it.
Ask the Ukranians about the efforts they have to put in to de ieve Russian air defences. If it were so easy one presumes they would have destroyed the Kursk bridge by now. From what I read if often takes three days of softening up and deception to hit high priority targets. I bet they would love to have hypersonic missiles to add to their arsenal and give flexibility to their planning.
BUT BUT BUT
Some press reports (or speculations?) say that funding of new technology for the armed forces is to be cut back severely. Can this possibly be true ?
Ms Reeves has asked for £5.5b cuts across all depts to help close the ‘black hole’. The MoD has been asked to ask its suppliers for proposals to cut in year spend. My guess is BAE can find a way to rescope programs so items are shipped this year but invoices are pushed into next year- basically we need to borrow at zero interest from BAE. Creative accounting. I’m sure they can afford it. I also see spending level authorisations for MoD civil servants to buy consultancy services have been slashed.
BAe have a lot of choice right now on customers not sure why they would take a hit, they’re not known for playing ball with the government. Big one for BAe would be to say OK but we want one T26 to go to Norway to secure that deal. Both Gov and BAe win, BAe secure multi billion order which help with Labours growth plans (yeah all cheer Rachel) and don’t need to make milestone payments on one of the ships in construction. Navy get a bit shafted for a few years but with the refocus on Europe they can bring back OPVs to fill gaps, no surprise there, not sailing around the globe was the strategy anyway.
Bottom line is Government aren’t cutting spending just spending more on pay and conditions but the budget need to come from somewhere. Quite frankly they should have increase the budget.
I think the ‘Black Hole’ thing is making them look bad, fairly clear now economy was and is still growing, government interest rates are dropping and likely to keep dropping over the next year. There was speculation they would do this post election so they probably need to drop it quickly or they will end up looking stupid.
Its been validated and companies have been approached to provide savings, note that doesn’t necessarily mean a capability cut if the company can deliver the same product or service for less. But what company in their right mind would say ‘yeah we could have given you that for 20% less’ 😀. One of the UK satellite companies was approached are fearful their program will be axed.
Also these are not spending cuts they need to fund the pay rises so defence spending will stay above 2%
The question is what is going to launch it? We would have to wait for block99 for F-35 if it could carry exteranl (no stealth so wasting platforms biggest plus), intergrating on phoons is possible but the fleet is shrinking. The ship based solution is FC/ASW so cannot see why would waste even more cash intergrating into MK41 especially if it’s not likely to be exported. Of course if we had ground based hypersonic AShM with 3-500Mile range nobody would come near us then!!! and would expect a fair bit of export interest?
Block 99? 🤔 Surely you jest, good sir? 😉 Since Block 4 is proving to be the Full Employment Act of the 2020s (and quite probably the ’30s), one shudders to contemplate future weapon integration efforts. 😱 Best to target GCAP as the platform of choice. 😁
I’m sure the GCAP partners would be willing to integrate US weapons as well were the USAF to express interest in a small purchase, given the delays and equivocation over NGAD.
For a price, of course…
In my dreams it would the five squadrons of F15EX we are buying.
There was a report a few weeks ago on X of basing missiles in Germany, and developed with them.
Great, but rumour has it, and that’s all it is at the moment, civil servants have been told to cut R&D funding by 20 per cent. If true ?
Geoff, does that extend to military R&D as well?
As far as I know, yes but as I said it was in the D.T. so…🙄
Thank you Geoff
👍
Its only military RnD as far as I’m aware. Companies doing RnD has had some tax breaks removed also.
Thank you expat
Serious question: Do we really need it? Massive challenges to develop a hypersonic missile or vehicle. Don’t we already have the technology to reach targets by various means? So are we spending a fortune on this just because Russia etc claims to have them, but they’re not that effective?
The long awaited FC/ASW program has already dropped the hypersonic option.
Hum, not really
With Reaction Engines, the U.K. is already in a good position regarding the power plant.
To be honest I think that they will be a lot of talk, even money spent on R+D, then prototypes, followed by cancellation and I am taking about Ships, aircraft, missiles etc…Labour will simply rely on the rest of NATO to defend the UK..October will be the defining moment
i’d say save money and purchase the SIAW which is the AARGM-ER anti/radar AND land attack missile. its thought to go over mach 4.5, and actually according to lockheeds website it travels “hypersonically”, can be carried internally on the F-35 and is in production now.
if the SIAW is too small or you want something ground/ship based im sure the US would sell the dark eagle which is either already in service or entering service this year. better yet, purchase some of both system. the RAF is without anti-radar missiles anyways so this would take care of that.
a billion dollars to develop capability that already exists, then only be able to afford a token amount is crazy. this was part of the AUKUS deal- take advantage of it!
I’m not keeping up, do hypersonics hit moving targets and the physics sorted.
Yes, a hypersonic missile can hit a moving target. But a lot will depend on the target’s velocity and the type of missile being used. For example a ship will be much easier to hit than say a tank, even though both will be moving at a similar speed tactically. Purely based on the ship being bigger,.thereby giving the missile a larger target to aim at. For targets that are manoeuvring eratically. A hypersonic missile cannot turn as tightly to cut the corner for an interception. This is due to the induced g multiplication. The missile’s airframe would need to be substantially beefed up to cope with the g. The physics for this is well understood.
Pardon my complete lack of technical knowledge of hypersonics, but it’s that fast and flies far, there seems to be a big potential here for SAM/ABM use as well as AShM and Land attack? Or, would it operate differently to other missiles, like an Aster?
Militarily ATACMS seems to have been very effective in Ukraine/Russia, China similarly has developed area denial capability with its missiles and Iran/Houthi have been shoiwng how effective and accurate ballistic missiles have been. Currenlty the UK has no similar capability and it would seem that this is going to be something that’s likely to be a needed capability in the next few years.
Will it fit inside an F35B’s weapons bay?
Oh dear me another Pipe dream gobbling up monies that have to be borrowed
Why
Absolutely critical to success in developing Hypersonics is Wind Tunnels
The USA abandoned years ago due to the massive power sources to produce
High winds to enable properly test and develop
China constructed a electric power station solely to provide energy for their
Power tunnel
This produced results that allowed successful deployment
But here’s the big Rub
Whilst conducting these wind tunnel tests it very quickly became apparent that whilst the missile is subjected to such high velocities, Then simple physics induced serious depletion of
The missiles guidance and targeting
Electronics
China knowing by way of it’s tests exactly what and where these effects
Seriously impaired the electronic systems
Resulting in complete modification of design and location of these systems
But also very quickly put their vast research resources to work upon finding further better solutions as the problems were not entirely resolved
Result a completely new Material was
Created Test after test till perfected
Now fully incorporated into their Hypersonics
Needless to say that this new Material is a very closely guarded secret
However this material resolved the problems and China now has thourghly
Reliable fit for purpose Hypersonics
Ah but China being China did not sit down with a big smile as they patted each others backs
So and being in full knowledge of the huge problems in powering their conventional wind tunnels
They went back to the Drawing Board
Result now built tested and fully commissioned A completely new type of test wind tunnels
Once more a closely guarded secret
But the tunnel operates on the basis of
Strategically placed along the entire length of the test tunnel a most complex serious of ‘ Flash ‘ explosions along with advanced computing controls to sync and induce these explosions in sequence each explosion only lasts for a Millie second
But as each goes off along the length of the tunnel they induce faster and faster velocities
This has now led too what they have discovered at even higher velocities
Being fully incorporated into their Hypersonics and no details available
As to how their Hypersonics now
Built
Given all this Where the Hell are your tunnels
Answer you ain’t even got a conventional tunnel
Thereby rendering you years and hopelessly behind
All because China working hard on developing Super Hypersonics with speeds of 8 to 10 Mach as their new test tunnel easily generated such velocities to enable
That’s what happens when any have the audacity to Threaten China
Lol, I see you are back and as yet still Sober ! Tell me, at what point in your consumption routine do you turn into an angry drunk ? 😂
Oh dear me
Insults are required to counter all I say
Well for you all here’s some more
Facts derived from Respected Academic sources and no axe to grind
Of the most vital areas of research , development and implementation
Of technologyy for success in the future
Out of the 44 activities identified
China leads in 37 of them The UK Zero
Of the top research institute’s globally China out of 20 nr.
Has 14 of them Once more UK zero
China alone has more than 3 million
University graduates employed
Solely in Research and development
China has 9 very large centres of
Excellence for the research, development and manufacture of
The vital technology of future social
And economic success
Ah but fortunately for you
All involved are Chronic alcoholics
And currently inebriated
Please, oh please, can you help us? What shall we do? This is so huge and big, it seems impossible and incredible… Could you introduce us to your masters?
Masters I have none
Other than my mind which is open and free that none can imprison
I bow to no one
Nor Doff my cap
And refuse to be a servant of the UK
State
I am a citizen of Scotland
Of which none can deny
I bet that power station they constructed was coal fired. They must PTSL at us.🙄
I just took a look at your activity history, you wrote two words, 3 months back “Test Comment” and managed a full stop at the end !!!! Funny thing is, you arrived at the same time that another “regular” left. Hmmmm, I get it now ! 😎
Easily explained the software of this
Journal is not upto it’s task and has inherent defects
Whilst I conduct my business with
China I use only soft and hard IT
That’s Chinese
Vastly superior to the hideously expensive Western crap that problems continually arise whilst using such as currently
Yesterday via a UK bank endeavours to transfer monies between various accounts and only after hours of phone calls and efforts which last night were not resolved
However the computer glitch causing the problem were finally
Resolved at 1330 hrs today
You lot got one helluva catching up to do
“Easily explained the software of this journal is not upto it’s task and has inherent defects”
So you blame the site for your lack of punctuation ???
The rest of your comment makes no real sense either.
Can you come back later as Ulya please as He/She could at least type English better ? 😁
How can you demonstrate your ‘leadership’ in Hypersonics when we have NO M5 weapons… it just confirms my opinion of politicians…. if hot air could power are M5 programme we would be a world leader…..