The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the Future Air Superiority Effectors programme (FASE) is currently in its pre-concept phase and that work is under way to establish a concept phase.
In a written parliamentary answer on 24 September 2025, Minister of State Luke Pollard set out the department’s position, saying “The Future Air Superiority Effectors programme is currently in pre-concept phase, and work is actively underway to establish a concept phase.” The reply was made in response to a question from Ben Obese-Jecty MP.
FASE is intended to deliver next-generation air-to-air and related effectors designed to engage a broad range of targets and operate from multiple platforms, including future crewed and uncrewed aircraft, according to publicly available programme descriptions.
The MOD statement did not provide further technical detail, procurement timelines or budgetary figures.
Pre-concept activity typically covers early analysis, threat definition, option development and initial requirements setting ahead of a formally scoped concept phase and any subsequent procurement competition. The department’s answer indicates that those preparatory steps are in progress but stopped short of announcing milestones or dates for transition to later phases.
No additional information was supplied in the parliamentary answer about suppliers, test plans or integration with wider air-domain programmes. As with many defence development efforts at this stage, further public detail is likely to be limited until the concept phase concludes and decisions on acquisition routes are taken.
One for Tempest (amongst others) I presume but, inevitably, not likely to be seen on a preparatory system like the F-35.
The biggest danger here, I would think, is that it might take 50 years to come to fruition. By which time the F35 will be history.
Based on the emerging threats, expect to see this sooner rather than later.
Based on past and current spending plans don’t expect to see it at all.
Assume this will replace ASRAAM and/or Meteor in the dim and distant future. Will it get on the F35 before it (F35)is withdrawn from service, only slightly tongue in cheek, UK weapons integration on F35 has hardly been quick.
As our primary air defence platform is Typhoon and will probably be so towards 2040, potentially beyond then that is the aircraft most in need of this especially due to its lack of stealthiness. By late 30s hopefully Tempest will become the focus. Fact is while Meteor has characteristics that arguably make it the best all-around Air to Air missile around it is even now well out ranged by Chinese and some less sophisticated Russian missiles. Equally the Chinese ones are considerably faster. Clearly this means as good as it is, Meteor is going to be potentially struggling in the next decade certainly against the Chinese or those operating its missiles. So it either needs to be upgraded or replaced within the next decade and that’s being optimistic perhaps on timeline if we ever have to face the Chinese who I would fancy being up against even now.
I hope that an accurate assessment of the risk can be obtained from the Indians and/or the French based on the events of the recent Indo-Pakistan conflict. We’re Meteors employed by Indian Rafales, were targets attained and were any engaged. The story behind that will shed much light on how urgent the situation is. It’s possible, some say likely the Indians thought they were outside of Pakistani missile range and may have been complacent that first night, and/or they didn’t utilise Early Warning Aircraft effectively, unlike the Pakistanis but answers do need to be had so that the threat can be properly assessed.
I suspect that the Meteor is already a very good basis for any new missile, so would expect the design to form the basis of any new missile, further range extension being the main factor but assessments of what it’s up against will dictate what else in terms of manoeuvrability, electronics, guidance and sensors and overall performance.
The replacement for Meteor will sit between the ASRAAM replacement and STRATUS RS’ air to air mode in terms of range, so unless MBDA think they can hugely improve performance from the same footprint as Meteor the improvements will have to either be in pK through either ECCM or manoeuvrability, or in compactness of the propulsion system so that Tempest can carry as many as possible internally while retaining capability.
When Meteor was concepted, one of the key requirements was that it had to match the footprint of the existing AMRAAM. This was so that it could fit in the underbody cut-outs on the Typhoon. As the F35’s design was being frozen, AMRAAM being the primary A2A weapon, meant Meteor had to also match it to make sure it could fit in the weapons bays.
If you compare the dimensions of the Chinese PL15 with AMRAAM/Meteor, you’ll notice that PL15 is longer (4m vs 3.65m) and also wider in diameter (203mm vs 178mm). The additional volume is used to contain more propellent. According to reports it uses a twin pulse solid rocket motor. Meaning it uses a boost, glide, re-accelerate flight profile. The PL15E export version is slightly smaller, with slightly less performance than the Chinese only version. What information can be gleaned from the recent India vs Pakistan spat, is that the PL15E has an approximate range close to 200km (124 miles). Which some say similar to Meteor, so in theory the full fat PL15 should have a longer range.
In practice, there won’t be a lot between them. Some publications say that the PL15 accelerates to Mach 5 after launch, which is great. It is a fairly aerodynamic design. But the crucial factor is the cruise/glide phase, when the missile is slowing down due to drag, as its unpowered. The question would be over say a 100 mile engagement by how much does it slow down? Does it drop to Mach 3 or lower? Meteor, when launched will accelerate to around Mach 4.5 perhaps a bit more. If its been used against a long range target at a similar 100 mile range, it will throttle back. But to what speed, Mach 3 has been mentioned a lot, but it could be more. These deceleration curves and cruise curves can be plotted on a graph. To see which missile reaches the re-acceleration threshold the quickest, i.e. where the second stage of the PL15 is ignited or the Meteor throttles up again.
However, if Meteor was made to the same dimensions as the PL15, so that it contain more fuel. It will have a distinct advantage over the twin pulse rocket powered PL15. As it would mean that with more fuel available. It can either extend the range further, whilst staying at the same Mach 3ish powered cruise speed. Or there’s no need to throttle back, and it maintains a much higher cruise speed over say the 100 mile distance. By using more fuel to maintain a higher cruise speed, the missile will close the distance much faster than the PL15. Thereby giving the larger Meteor and launch aircraft a distinct advantage.
The problem with the larger Meteor is it will now be too big to fit in the F35’s weapons bays, so will have to go under the wing. It would be the same for Typhoon, it would be too big for the underbody cut-outs. Unless the aircraft was modified to accommodate the larger missile.
Other options for the current Meteor, would be to add am additional 1st stage rocket booster. Either by adding the stage after the missile body, to make it longer, which is not great for the F35 fitment. Or strapping additional rocket boosted to the main body of the missile, that then fall away once they’ve used up their fuel. Thereby accelerating the missile to Mach 5 or more at launch, which delays the need to throttle back as quickly for the cruise stage. You could also look at opening up the two small air intakes, as their cross sectional area probably inhibits speeds above Mach 5.
What has become evident that the JF17s that launched the PL15Es, then handed control over to the Saab 2000’s. That then used the Erieye radar and data-link to steer the missiles towards the targets. Which I believe is the first time this process has been used in combat. The problem for aircraft facing this, is that the radar illuminating you doesn’t change the way its operating. To an aircraft’s radar warning receiver (RWR) it will look like a search radar scanning the skies, not one that is tracking you. I wonder if we will ever find out how both the Indian and Pakistani AEW platforms performed. As India now has the IL-76s with the Israeli EL/W-2090 AESA radar along with the Netra-1s and the older IL-76 Candids from Russia. Does the Indian AEW platforms have the capability for data-linking to beyond visual range missiles?
“Pre Concept phase”
Maybe we’ll come back in ten years after all the meetings and discussions have come up with an actual concept ?
The Bloke who did Funderbirds was churning out new concepts daily.
(I slipped one in for thun)
Working in government must truly be the cushiest job of all time. Imagine the fate of us humble mortals if we took ten years to produce a tangible return for our employers
As an Employer, I would have sacked the lot of them.
Aah but would you have replaced them with halfwits?🤪
If you employ halfwits you have to have twice as many, but you can pay each of them a quarter of the usual wages!
Levi, fair point. In early 2016 I was working for Rheinmetall on the Challenger 2 Life Extension Project (now called CR3!). It will be fully in service in 2030. That’s 14 years for just for a platform upgrade, not even a totally brand new platform.
I suspect this won’t be a clean sheet missile but if it is I dread to think what the timescale will be. Even a much upgraded Meteor will no doubt have various delays when one considers how Spear 3, Brimstone 3 and even the ‘simple’ Martlet did despite greatly exploiting much pre existing or merely updated technology.
We need a method in this country for new companies to bring their ideas to the fold. We need systems to kill small cheap slow drones today. Basically we should not be spending any more on anti drone systems than the target drone costs to produce in the first place (preferably less).
We should also be combining the work of different Small to Medium size businesses (SMEs) working simulatiously on different aspects of this solution.
Laser guided rockets like the US uses is one option. Not dirt cheap but still a lot cheaper than missiles costing more than a million a pop. Even as a stop gap until something takes their place. It would be far too sensible for the MOD to consider a ready made option though, not the done thing.
I always thought the best answer to an incoming enemy drone swarm would be a drone swarm of our own.
Just send up a flock of dozens of our own drones, each packed with explosives, to get close to the enemy drones and detonate – ideally blowing up several enemy ones at once.
True but your drone flock will have to be within a few miles of the attacking drones for the most part, not an easy thing to organise or maintain when you don’t know when or where the attack might take place. You will get some but not sure how effective it would be over time and those operating the drones would hardly be immune from being taken out. I think a relatively fast and long endurance mother drone that can release a number of of mini drones to actually do the final intercept would be a decent bet.
With all due respect to George and the team and their hard work reporting on defence issues, I am sick to the back teeth of reading about “pre-concept, “concept, “studies” and “evaluations” of technology and weapon systems. When, I ask, will HMG and the MOD actually buy something that will improve our defence situation? Can they (you know who “they” are) not understand the gravity of the situation?
It’s the same bad habit of saying ‘by 2030,’ but wait, by then it will be 2035/40; some things never change.
The thing is Ian. All of the mentioned activities you listed have been ongoing for decades and the results are the equipment and capabilities you see in service today. The big difference is, you didn’t hear about these concept studies and evaluations back then because it wasn’t such open source news released to the general public to comment on. And the days before social media and defence news sites like UKDJ.
Agreed Robert, but it is the world we live in and still galls me.
Agreed Robert, but it is the world we live in.
I agree there were loads of project that were canned, amalgamated etc.
It is rather the nature of cutting edge research that it goes beyond the possible and then sits ‘cooking’ for a while until technology catches up with it.
You could say the same for the SAMPSON SEA VIPER setup that was a load of projects that couldn’t be made to work on computers of then but works perfectly on the computers of now.
I agree especially when the article says what they are saying only for it to immediately be repeated in quotes. Never quite understood the need for that peculiarity of presentation. Double repetitive.
And what’s happening in the UK GBAD department?! Other than some more SkySabre for Army any other news? Nice putting missiles on ships and talking about future ships, sloops etc, but what about right now to next 5 years? Some SAMP/T land based Aster that could be shared with the RN could be a start, Denmark just purchased last week (or so) and France and Italy have. Other more en masse systems needed too. Even a UK NASAM to utilise current missile stocks. They’ve got to ge watching what our allies are doing and hopefully doing something? Ports, bases, infrastructure, people, all should have some basic and readily delployable protection at least. Increasing “lethality” is also be in the defensive department.
IMO, SAMP/T isn’t going to do much that the Sky Sabre can’t already do. Anything ballistic on its way from Russia will be beyond the capability of the Block 1NT to do much about.
If you want to be better defended against cruise missiles, get more Sky Sabres, integrate newer missiles and position them around airfields, naval bases, et cetera.
Sky Sabre’s radar is the current limitation.
The Sky Sabre style batteries are fine for local/small area defence of bases etc.
There also needs to be something with a lower cost per shot than Sky Sabre linked into the system – my preference is for 40mm to deal with drones and leakers. The sort of massed assault of drones mixed with similar dummy drones….
Really there needs to be a radar of radars approach. That way taking out a few radar heads wouldn’t make too much difference.
Is that the sort of system the Poles are aiming for? Layered, flexible but very interconnected.
Just wait till Drones start hanging about over Brize, or Lossi.
I think it is only a matter of time.
The RAF Regiment has a small CAUS capability, but, no idea how effective it is, and I doubt it can “cover” more than a handful of sites.
Still…..more tea, biscuits, meetings, studies, concepts, and plans for MoD to announce and Putin is a patient man.
That is the thing you can launch drones out of a container on a ship or a truck or whatever you like really.
The sort of cheapo polystyrene stuff they are using will be hard to track as that part of it is radar transparent.
Which leads my mind to an AA gun system issued to a Regiment sized unit, centrally located, that can disperse to multiple locations on warning, and we do rely on our intelligence apparatus for such warnings.
As to me HMG will baulk, and find endless excuses, to fund a wider comprehensive solution that has defences In place in multiple locations waiting for something that might not come.
Ideally, I’d have a CUAS capability at every major UK airport, and much of our key node defence sites, but I’m trying to be realistic.
The MOD Police operate this way, they cover plenty of places, but cannot be everywhere, so have tactical units that can deploy where needed, geographically placed north, central, south, to deploy as needed.
The way the MOD police etc operate is fine for peace time but it is not a viable high threat operational mode.
The whole though process needs to change to accept that we are sliding into a state of grey war where Russia & Co are laughingly testing us out on a daily basis.
Interesting to get more info from the recent Danish (and I believe and instance in Norway too) drone incidents. If they were Russian instigated they sure weren’t flown in from Russia so local agents, from vehicles, or ships at sea, I think we need to understand the threat if not simply local idiots playing a game. But then even that could be a threat realistically if left uncountered.
Concept: Shoot down an enemy plane at n miles. Done, moving on!
Keep up the good work!
Built for, but not with, any political will to complete the program.
Wow another named project, there so many with so little to show for any of them. If armed forces were judged on how may projects they are looking into Britain would be a world leader. Sadly we do seem struggle when comes buying any thing from this mass of projects. We like to talk about kit, have meetings, invite industry then nothing much else.
MOD has become an empty talking shop with nothing to show for it but words and targets,
I think we need a new Ministry of Silly Names to deal with the rush. These things have to be organised don’t ya know.
I agree as long we can have some meetings about and get some out side advice in to see if we are on the right path, of course we will need pay for out side help. However any cost will be worth it to get the name and group format right yet still produce nothing.