The Ministry of Defence has formally revealed its intention to pursue a new ground-launched tactical ballistic missile under Project NIGHTFALL.
The requirement is at an “open early engagement” stage. Industry has until 18 September to respond before a follow-on competition is launched.
The MOD described the Single Statement of User Need (SSUN) in direct terms: “The User requires a cost-effective, tactical (>500km) ballistic missile, capable of being safely ground launched from a mobile platform in a high threat tactical environment, navigating to and accurately striking a user-programmed co-ordinate.”
The document emphasises that the missile must be operable in harsh conditions: “It shall be operable in harsh physical environments, day and night, of low multispectral signature, resilient in a complex Electromagnetic environment (EME), including within a GNSS denied & degraded environment, and resistant against targeted EW attack and spoofing.”
The published specifications set out a demanding baseline:
Range: more than 500km on a ballistic trajectory
Payload: around 200kg of high explosive per effector
Accuracy: CEP50 of 5m, including in GPS-denied environments
Responsiveness: strike targets within 10 minutes of launch
Volume of fire: more than two missiles per vehicle, all launched within 15 minutes
Scalability: minimum output of 10 missiles per month, with capacity to expand
The MOD also stipulated a target price: “The target effector cost is £500,000 all-up per unit, excluding the warhead, launcher and any development costs.”
The aim is not just to field a new missile but to do so at speed. “The aim is to deliver this product at pace, which means there is an aggressive timeline of a demonstration firing in circa 9 months from any contract award and serial production approximately 3–6 months later, producing a minimum of 10 units per month.”
The requirement states that multiple missiles must be delivered from a single mobile launcher. “MOD requires the ability to deliver multiple (>2) effectors from a single ground vehicle,” the notice explains. The vehicle must be able to halt, fire all effectors within 15 minutes, and then leave within five minutes of the final launch to avoid counter-fire.
Flight profiles must be fast, with a time-to-target of less than 10 minutes. Each effector should also demonstrate “some basic manoeuvrability” while retaining the cost ceiling and accuracy standards.
The MOD has clarified what will and will not be considered. Acceptable solutions include complete missiles or contributions in specific categories such as propulsion, airframe, navigation, scalable manufacturing, mobile launcher systems, or systems integration. Prototype systems are permitted if they can be developed to test-ready status within nine to twelve months.
By contrast, the notice warns that proposals will not be accepted if they involve “solutions exceeding target prices, drones or other effectors that do not fly in a ballistic trajectory, literature reviews, warheads, [or] products that cannot be scaled at pace/meet the timelines.”
The MOD also stated that “the project will be prioritising scalability over exquisite solutions,” making clear that mass production and rapid delivery are valued more than highly complex or expensive designs.
Some components may be provided as government furnished equipment. This includes “payload, fuzes, testing ranges/facilities, support for scaling, [and] government SME (DSTL, DE&S) advice.” The MOD further noted that designs should “minimise and ideally be free from foreign government trade and usage restrictions, such as export control,” ensuring independence from non-UK suppliers and avoiding political limitations.
Upgrade potential is also required, with the notice stating that systems must be adaptable for “increasing the range, accuracy, in-flight manoeuvrability, fitted telemetry and other elements as required.”
To support the launch of Project NIGHTFALL, an industry day will be held in London on 24 September 2025. Attendance will be limited to two representatives per company, with one permitted if capacity is exceeded. Responses must be submitted by 18 September.
The MOD is encouraging collaboration: “MOD encourages companies to work together in a consortium to help address the full NIGHTFALL requirements.” Following this engagement, the department intends to run a competition through the Defence Sourcing Portal, narrowing down to an anticipated three proposals. These will be funded to demonstrate compliance with requirements in 2026.
With a planned 600km-plus range, 300kg payload, rapid launch and strike cycles, and mass production of ten units per month, the requirement outlines an ambitious, scalable capability. If industry feedback is positive, a competition will be launched in late 2025, leading to demonstration firings in 2026.
I still like to see these figures in in traditional figures.
Range 310 Miles
Payload 440LBS
Accuracy 3.2 miles.
Or if you take the last Paragraph,
Range 374+ Miles
Payload 660LBS.
In old money.
£500,000 per effector (only) and target of 120 per year gives £60,000,000 so plenty of money left to buy the dangerous bit and the Hi-Lux Launch Vehicle.
Accuracy figure is a bit out, I just got up !
16 ft, or there abouts.
Would be cool to have an Edit feature, I’d use it a lot !!!
Yes miss that facility. Have to say when I saw accuracy 3.2 miles it took me back to the 60s as many a casual off the cuff ‘effector’ does these days.
Am disappointed you didn’t go the whole way and price the effectors in guineas and their range in cubits…
Surely Rods, Poles and Perches are the best units?
Then provide a handy conversion table to olympic swimming pools, sausages, London buses and Nelson’s column….
How many groats to the £ these days, Doubloons for that matter, Drake, Raleigh will be turning in their graves. Bloody EU.
Sorry, I’m not a Tennis fan.
Don’t be disapointed Spock, I’m waiting for the Photon Torpedo and Phaser article, Then I’ll post Warp Speed and Star date comparisons just for you.
If you look behind, you might just see a Klingon, de-cloaking or It might just be Flash Gordon.
Why? if it ground launched MLRS A2 can do this already,(depending on ammo type). I like the idea of it and home built would be way better than being ripped off by the Yanks, just not sure what gap it fills and what might launch it. Will it be hyper sonic? it will need to to be. A testable round in under a year, ha ha nothing the MOD does take less than 3/5/10 years and way over cost.
Ground base ballistic defence would be a good idea and or Hyper missile defence.
Move away from reliance on the US, who has demonstrated to be an unreliable ally
Or on the flip side, a fudge procement process with requirements designed to guarantee that the existing platform that they intend to buy wins it. Been done many times before.
The unreliable ally is the UK. It’s the UK that deliberately allowed its Armed Forces to atrophy so that it can contribute very little relative to its size thus increasing the burden on a US that has consistently maintained its commitments to NATO. I guess 10,000 airmen and three of the best jet fighter squadrons in the world stationed on British soil defending the UK makes the US unreliable. Perfidious Albion.
🥱
Thanks for the update yank.
Umm you do realise the US economy is about 8-10 times the size of the UK so if we scale
Carriers 2 x10 =20 ummm
Large surface combatants 14x 10 =140 umm does the US have 140 large surface combatants?
SSN 7×10 =70, clue you dont have 70 SSNs
SSBNs 4 X10 =40
Fighter jets 160ish x 10 =1600
MBTs 220 x 10 =2200
So by scale we do put down a relative capability. So take your hate and maybe direct it at the actual enemies of your nation before it to late..
Well we have on order 13 frigates and have 6 destroyers so that will be 19 real warships quite soon.
As I’ve made the point before if we went back to 24 real warships we would have about 30% of the USN fighty fleet.
TBH that might be the best way for us to go with a bigger ASW and GP fleet as that is what is needed.
Although more P8 would be quite useful too and I am not holding my breath for its drone friends and they won’t be any cheaper or better to run.
PKCasimir, True that our armed forces have atrophied too much, but Britain (Cameron) set the 2% target for NATO at the 2014 conference and has always achieved that. I am not aware that the US increased their military presence in Europe during the years that Britain and other ENATO forces atrophied unless you care to enlighten us?
Perhaps your point is better directed at NATO countries that did not spend 2%?
Or maybe even the ones that have not historically supported US foreign policy even to our own detriment…..
There are also other eNATO countries that have spent and supported US foreign policy…..
You might try calling out Spain [who still refuse to go to meaningful spending] Germany who took the uber peace dividend…..
… and more worryingly the Trump Regime is going full economic Commie/National Socialist at the moment buying shares in Intel, Navidia and wanting part of Lockheed Martin and Palantir amongst others. This I fear is but the beginning. Clearly the desired policy is step by step, to control the mechanisms of internal control and as he is already attempting through tariffs and external economic policy utilising effective bribes/blackmail, using that Govt power and direct influence to leverage further control over external matters, Countries and bodies too. A Greater Trumpian Union of compliant States. If there aren’t kill switches now there certainly will be in the future weapons we expensively buy. Forcing Countries to buy American weapons as part of tariff threats now while having far greater control over the usability of those weapons in future conflict is scary to imagine. Particularly after we saw the troubled shaken look and presence of Trump and co after the Alaska fiasco while the Russians looked smug and smiling like they owned the place, well they think they do of course. Dread to think what was revealed in that meeting but not good I fear.until we know otherwise we must see Trump as a Russian asset and act accordingly whatever sickening bending the knee we see in public to polish his ego.
The thing is, if we are going to spend a load of money building stockpiles of missiles then we may as well examine if that money can be spent in the UK.
We do fundamentally have the tech to produce missiles and systems like this. We have developed CAMM and other related systems.
The problem, recently, has been the tiny production volumes that MOD has been buying so making them in the UK has been outrageously expensive.
If MOD are prepared to commit to volume production [10 per month isn’t any kind of volume] then costs will fall.
More the questions is how big a stockpile we are prepared to pay for and therefore keep and to what capacity can the line scale?
Agreed if the MOD ordered more it would lower cost price but do seem to hold not that big stock piles, may be that might change. Buying from the USA has it pit falls ie they can charge what they want, supply if and when they want its money going out of the country and as with F35 they control the soft ware.
It says that the Industry day will be on the 24th Sep 25 and the responses must be submitted by the 18th Sep. ?
Probably about right, given the standard of some documents sent from DE&S.
Contradicting requirements, races time lines for the contractor to respond, then 6 months for MOD to comment.
Sounds like an excellent excuse to produce Ukraine’s Neptune 2 in this country. Might get some sizeable export orders from NATO?
hw. Sloppy staff work from DE&S perhaps. But usually the initial response from Industry is just an Expression of Interest.
Am I missing the obvious or context perhaps butisn’t the 18th for acknowledgement of interest to the proposal and 24th the meet up to get the low down on what’s required and discuss further? Very tight mind. It begs the further question, what form could this missile take that could be proposed let alone developed in the required time scales, what UK based manufacturers or at least uk IP (or offered IP) could be offered up to achieve it. Can’t think of any present Uk missile that could be adapted to meet this request so one presumes that indeed the Neptune or similar base missile might well be offered to fulfil it, get produced here and perhaps re supplied back to Ukraine or whoever might want it. Effectively this request would be something of a cover to get around clear hostility and threats from Russia while enabling a decent Uk built capability for ourselves. Time will tell.
This just sounds like a requirement for PrSM dressed up in a project so some colonel can have something good on his CV before he goes off to try an get an over paid “consultancy” gig from the same defence contracts making billions from HMG.
We already announced two years ago we are buying PrSM
My first thought as well.
Is PrSM cancelled?
And who in the RA will fire it?
Until orders are placed it’s just another program that makes headlines that might go nowhere.
I was sceptical about the price target too, but I don’t really know prices so maybe it is doable.
Hi Daniele,
I wondered about the price until I read what it excluded, the launch vehicle, the warhead and critically the development costs.
One thing that got my attention is that the warhead might be GFE. So what kind of warhead?
The requirement to be able to increase range was also interesting. The easiest way to increase the range of a ballistic missile, assuming it is strong enough to take the extra loads, is to bolt a first stage booster onto it. So depending on where the range finally settles for the initial design this thing could be developed to achieve a range close to 1000km.
The real development, if successful, is the procurement cycle and the production scalability.
Cheers CR
Morning mate.
Yes, I raised my eyebrows too at the GFE bit.
Are we talking some mash up like some of the Ukrsine stuff?
Or tha ability to turn it into a tactical nuclear weapon.
Could be. Certainly the timeframe is fast and is inline with the idea that we are moving onto a war footing. If it works I’ll amazed and relieved frankly. We desperately need to speed up procurement and critically ensure that defence infrastructure keeps up with the switch into a pre-war era. Capability is dependent on more than just the technology and people. Boring stuff like space and cranes to move containers around, holes in the ground to store munitions etc.
Another option for the missile is a nuclear warhead as Jonathan suggested. That would be an obvious GFE warhead and would change the calculus in Europe.
Cheers CR
I think that is a vital option to at least put powerful doubts in the minds of Putin but perhaps more importantly those around him who may retain more caution. The Cuba crisis might have turned into full scale war perhaps nuclear war had not one Russian submarine Captain not shown such caution.
A to small warhead. The requirement is for twice the mass
The UK has not stated it’s cancelling PrSM but it’s not actually signed up to anything just stated an intention. PrSM is coming in at $4m a missile and will simply be fired by the Army M270. It can just be swapped out with GMLRS rockets or the M270 can even carry one PrSM and 6 GMLRS at the same time.
There is no western ballistic missile with a 500 Km range other than ATACMS ($1.5m) or PrSM ($4m)
We are certainly not developing such a weapon neither is anyone else in Europe. This is just a fantasy program dreamt up to create a job tile
and staff positions under the proviso of maybe we can save money on PrSM.
Until PrSM is ready I doubt you will see a major commitment from the UK but then it’s really just a case of buying a new type of ammunition for an existing system so it’s not that big of a deal.
PrSM probably wasn’t generating enough staff positions so they came up with Project Nightfall so they could stick a Union Jack on a ballistic missile because it’s no weird or creepy to put your flag on a ballistic missile.
Well i support PrSM.
It exists.
And the Army has an ongoing plan for it a part of the Deep Fires M270 expansion.
This, and things like the German UK missile, just risk diverting money away from existing that is needed.
Too many programs.
Start one. Commit to it. Buy it in the number needed.
The German UK missile just smacks of HMG playing politics.
I thought of the German-UK missile first and the European ELSA initiative before PrSM, because I thought PrSM was American thus subject to ITAR. The stress here is on sovereign or at least free from foreign export controls, which suggest to me that “not American” has been painted in large letters all over the requirement. However, I’d always though ELSA would be cruise (as is FC/ASW) rather than ballistic, and the Anglo-German one is 2000km+ so it’ll be more expensive. Nightfall feels like yet another initiative to fill the intermediate range gap.
Once again, the warhead doesn’t meet the spec
PrSM does indeed exist and Australia is a partner in its development. As part of Land 8113 Australia is a cooperative development partner and has signed an MOU in 2025 with the U.S. for ‘production, sustainment and follow on development’. Australia has contributed $310 million towards development and a further $150 million for initial procurement.
In July 2025 the ADF tested fired PrSM from one of its HIMAR launchers (first of 42 being delivered) at Bradshaw range in the Northern Territory accurately hitting a target 300 kms away. The test firing was ahead of its development schedule.
PrSM is also a likely candidate for local production at the RTX (Raytheon) facility being built in Australia.
The extended range (1,000 km) version with maritime strike capability has the potential for Australia to develop its own Anti Access Area Denial A2AD across its northern approaches.
While the Nightfall project calls for a warhead twice the size of PrSM, it seems like a big investment to essentially duplicate an existing capability and subject to a potentially protracted development timeframe. But understand the rationale to develop an indigenous to the UK capability.
Just thought, the ITAR restrictions as part of AUKUS were supposed to be relaxed (no idea where that is going mind) is this proposal a direct challenge to US or other suppliers to make proposals on the basis that might put words into contractual writing, ie there will be Uk produced (if predominantly foreign origin) missiles that the manufacturer can ‘guarantee’ won’t have such restrictions or are at least minimalist, so effectively testing willingness of the US Govt in particular to come good on anything presently ‘nominally’ offered, after all as we have seen with Tariffs the detail is vital and to Trump wilfully chargeable. Only thought about this because of the Mako that Lockheed Martin offered last year to the uk and even offered to build it here first, the ITAR issue was in my mind when I read that. Trouble is can’t see how anything out of that Regime would be set in stone.
That should be 2 x PrSM and 6 x GMLRS at the same time. PrSM is two per pod.
Did the US ever confirm that we had been accepted as a PrSM customer? IIRC Norway was rejected.
No idea.
I always assumed it was a given the way the British Army has been talking.
So, how many currently ongoing programmes for new long-range fires does the MoD currently have ongoing? Off the top of my head, there’s the FC/ASW, the sovereign hypersonic weapon, the collaboration with Germany and now this sovereign ballistic weapon. These will all eat up valuable funding – perhaps an off-the-shelf solution could be considered for some of these initiatives?
You missed out Brakestop.
Thank you. I’d forgotten that one as well.
Of course. Money to the MIC. Their main objective.
Disappointing. The land of endless consultancy.
Brilliant news and not too soon for me. The current onslaught by Russia on Ukraine is a sober lesson for us all.
The significant requirement is the scalability: this is not just about defence. It’s about creating an industrial capability, skills, jobs, supply chains, exports.
Question I have never quite understood.
Why does the MoD need to pay industry to set up then pay industry to produce?
Do I pay a restaurant to open and contribute to its fitting
out, as well as then pay to eat in it?
So in effect MoD taxpayer pays to create it then spends even more buying from it.
No wonder Eisenhower warned about the MIC.
Dunno. But I can see that opening an initiative to wider industry early on would be a good way to encourage innovation, avoid revolving door appointments and widen competition.
Sure. That’s fine.
It’s the we keep paying them to do it that gets me.
And when a program is cancelled, do we get our money back?
Like hell we don’t.
Because industry isn’t going to invest capital when interest rates are high and likely to go higher
Did they ever when MoD and tax payers money is concerned?
Not sure how a 500km
range achieves much? The U.K. cannot defend against Russian staturation
attacks. It can counter with conventional payload BM strikes on Russian population centres if attacked. This sub-nuclear
deterrence is urgently needed.
Range 2000-3000km?
You hit the S400 and search radars with ballistic missiles and use the great ordnance capacity of aircraft to get into logistics and infrastructure.
Indeed that’s what the Ukranians have been doing before major drone attacks. It’s a complex game to get an eventual successful strike on well protected targets.
I hope they are not thinking of using American GPS/targeting, and the specs are very bland.
Not as easy as it sounds. With a 500km range 5m accuracy and a cost of 500,000 GBP per unit this will take some doing. PrSm costs seem to be about 3.5 million USD per unit. It seems to me that if the cost which is a major factor and range then accuracy will not be achieved. If its accuracy and range then cost is out the window. In my opinion two from the three is achievable but not all three. Then when we take speed of 1 mile per second (50km per min) then the cost does not seem to fit the requirements.
Could it be that someone has told them they know how it can be done for a fraction of what the US charge? Always remember we are British and very smart 🙂
Funny you should say that as my mind was already going back to a whole range of requirements that were radically altered, re-acquired from the bin or purely written up to reflect in these cases aircraft that had been devised by the companies privately. The Mosquito being perhaps the most successful example that the Air Ministry had no previous interest in. Do we still do that?
UK version of ATACMs ?
So the Nightfall missile, once devloped in several years time, will have a bit more range than the 1930s/40s-developed German V-2 but with only one fifth the payload?
This would be a great point if you hadn’t ignored the fact that the new missile is expected to hit a target that isn’t the size of a city.
Leh, Of course I realise that accuracy of ballistic missiles has improved over 80 years. My point really was about the payload.
You dont need a big payload if you are accurate. It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 percent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 x 500 ft (150 m) German power-generation plant. One F35 can do that from 20,000ft at night.
Take the Krech bridge, its guarded by an S400 theater level SAM system. You hit the search radars and fire control radsr with a ballistic missile and then you drop 2000lb laser guided bombs on the abutment the bridge dropping it and destroying its foundations. Combined arms warfare is a thing.
The biggest bombs we currently have are 500lb class.
GBU-24 Paveway III 2000lb bomb is in the RAF inventory
They effectivel left service with Tornado GR4.
Oh good, A project. What will we think of next? Buying something perhaps…
I share your cynicism, Geoff.
It’s a shame, as one tries to be positive.
But the endless spin, shell game, and smoke and mirrors has gone on for so long people don’t believe HMG or the MoD any more when it comes to this subject.
hw. Sloppy staff work from DE&S perhaps. But usually the initial response from Industry is just an Expression of Interest.
I like the name Nightfall. DE&S can occasionally come up with some good project names.
Personally I’d rather UK looked an upgraded Ukranian FP-5 Flamingo. Add a bit of stealth tech, flip out wings and go for a quicker deployment-launch cycle ( so cheap upgrade not goldplating). Might not be ‘world beating’ but cheap, so can be ordered in bulk, long range and with a big (1000+ kg) warhead. And we cojld ask Ukraine to ckmbat test them for us……😉