The UK has formally launched Project Nightfall, a competition to develop a new ground-launched tactical ballistic missile intended primarily for use by Ukrainian forces, while also shaping future British long-range strike programmes.
The government has moved ahead with Project Nightfall, a competitive effort to rapidly develop a ground-launched ballistic missile designed to give Ukraine a long-range strike capability against Russian forces. The programme builds directly on work first disclosed by the UK Defence Journal in December, when the Ministry of Defence published an initial contract notice outlining the requirement.
While the project is being run by the UK, ministers have been clear that the missile is not intended as a near-term addition to Britain’s own arsenal. Instead, Nightfall is designed around Ukrainian operational use, with British industry acting as the developer and manufacturer and the UK Armed Forces positioned as a future beneficiary of lessons learned rather than the immediate end user.
The December notice, published on 9 December 2025, confirmed that the MOD was seeking industry partners to “procure a future tactical ballistic missile through a short-term development programme”. That followed parliamentary confirmation in November that officials were assessing industry feedback ahead of launching a formal competition.
According to the published requirement, Nightfall is one of the most ambitious missile programmes pursued by the UK in decades. The MOD specified a cost-effective, ground-launched ballistic missile with a range greater than 500 kilometres, capable of operating in high-threat and heavily contested environments, including under intense electronic warfare and degraded or denied satellite navigation.
The missile must be “capable of being safely ground launched from a mobile platform in a high threat tactical environment, navigating to and accurately striking a user-programmed fixed target co-ordinate.” Each effector is expected to carry a conventional high-explosive payload of around 200 kilograms and follow a supersonic ballistic trajectory, with a stated accuracy requirement of striking within 10 metres of a target coordinate for 50 per cent of launches.
Mobility and survivability are central to the concept. The system is required to support salvo firing from a single launcher, with multiple missiles launched in quick succession before the crew withdraws rapidly. The MOD specified that launch units must be able to leave the firing area “within 15 minutes of launching all effectors”, with each missile reaching its target within approximately 10 minutes of launch.
Scalability is another key requirement. Subject to future contracts, production must be capable of delivering at least 10 missiles per month, with scope to increase output. Designs are also expected to allow future upgrades to range, accuracy and manoeuvrability, while minimising reliance on foreign export controls.
This week’s announcement adds political weight and funding detail rather than altering the core technical requirement. Under the current plan, the government intends to award up to three competing development contracts, each worth £9 million. Each team would be expected to design, develop and deliver three missiles within 12 months for test firings. Proposals are due by 9 February, with development contracts targeted for award in March.
Defence Secretary John Healey framed the programme as a response to continued Russian attacks, saying the UK was determined to place advanced weapons “into the hands of Ukrainians as they fight back.” In ful, he said:
“The attacks overnight on Thursday just go to show how Putin thinks he can act with impunity, targeting civilian areas with advanced weaponry. Instead of seriously negotiating a peace, he’s seriously escalating his illegal war. We were close enough to hear the air raid sirens around Lviv on our journey to Kyiv, it was a serious moment and a stark reminder of the barrage of drones and missiles hitting Ukrainians in sub-zero conditions. We won’t stand for this, which is why we are determined to put leading edge weapons into the hands of Ukrainians as they fight back.”
Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the missiles would “keep Ukraine in the fight” while also strengthening longer-term European security.
“A secure Europe needs a strong Ukraine. These new long-range British missiles will keep Ukraine in the fight and give Putin another thing to worry about. In 2026, we will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine. Providing equipment to keep them in the fight today, whilst working to secure the peace tomorrow.”
While the formal launch underscores the government’s intent, the substance of Project Nightfall remains closely aligned with the requirement outlined in December. As that original notice made clear, the MOD still reserves the right to amend or cancel the programme at any stage, stating that “the Authority reserves the right not to award any Contract to any supplier at any stage during the procurement.”
For now, Nightfall represents a rare case of the UK pursuing a ground-launched ballistic missile explicitly for a partner nation’s use, while using the programme to accelerate domestic expertise in deep-strike systems that Britain itself currently lacks.
I suspected project Nightfall was nothing to do with UK forces as the requirement seemed to be in direct competition with PrSM.
What company in Britain can build such a ballistic missile? It’s just not something we seem to have any expertise in.
That’s part of the point, I think; Ukraine gets PrSM for less cost and without ITAR, we gain the ability to build and iterate ballistic missiles if we ever need to produce them ourselves (for some reason).
Very happy to have UK expertise on ballistic missiles.
We may have great need of its soon after President Vance cuts us off from Trident II replacements.
The UK backed off land based ballistic missiles before primarily because silos were a nightmare to put in the UK. However with Technology advance’s a road mobile IRBM would probably be the fastest nuclear missile capability the UK could build if it found itself in need of a rapid deterrent replacement.
There are probably enough spots in the UK where a road mobile system could be survivable enough to provide a minimum deterrent against the Russians.
Have we committed to PrSM? Having production lines for a BM allows some leverage if PrSM is prohibitively expensive.
Has it been confirmed whether the output of Project Brakestop will be acquired by the UK for our own use, or is this also going to be procured for Ukraine only?
It’s been stated in media project breakstop will also be for UK military.
If such a missile is built – why wouldn’t it be used by British forces? If Ukraine needs it, chances are so do we – and if there isn’t another British built equivalent then it would seem to be an obvious buy.
My thoughts exactly. The only thing I can think of is that there won’t be gold plate on this system..!
Cheers CR
UKR wants the ‘it works well enough version’ in massive quantities.
UK wants the ‘it works perfectly always version’ in tiny quantities.
Sadly, that is very often true. It makes good sense to have a high low mix; the UK doesn’t seem to go much on the low side. One reason our kit is so expensive, costly to maintain, and in such short supply!
What also “strikes” me (pardon the pun) is all the media publicity for this type of missile for Ukraine. Why not keep it quiet for some element of surprise? Do we always need to tell Russia what we are doing and when and how many?
Why isn’t the UK building some for itself? Could it be used as part of a coastal defence battery in a ashm capacity? Isn’t this the type that they want to fire off the deck carrier’s? I thought it was going to have a range up to 2000km?
If the final product is delivered to spec at an attractive price I would bet the UK will order some for themselves.
Keeping options open I presume. As much expertise we can gain the better in ballistic missiles in particular. As Jim says Vance and very likely other future Republican Presidents are very possibly, perhaps likely won’t share nuclear missiles with us. Ironically Ukraine has a fair amount of missile expertise, they designed a lot of them in Soviet times so I do wonder if this is an opportunity for Ukrainian companies to contribute here while using British technology and production, this sort of cooperation does seem to be developing in drones.
The actual statement, for those interested:
wwwgovuk/government/news/uk-to-develop-new-deep-strike-ballistic-missile-for-ukraine
A pity we won’t be operating these for ourselves, but the industrial benefits and expertise will still come. And the ‘Range of vehicles’ comment is interesting, it implies containerisation.
Certainly in the late fifties and sixties if too briefly we quickly developed very effective, innovative and reliable rocket technologies, much of that talent and indeed technology moving into NASA projects and even the Apollo programme so I suspect with some help we could re-find those skills so the terms shaping and learning lessons for future projects certainly makes a lot of sense especially if we look to join the French or others in a future where the US is no longer an option.
Between Nightfall and Brakestop things were starting to look a bit too sensible.
Glad the other shoe has finally dropped and I can get a good night’s sleep.
Still have STRATUS LO, Deep Precision Strike an acquisition of PrSM.
I don’t think the UK will be short on strike options.
Between these two maybe the next UK missile might be called “[Living] Daylight[s]” or “Good morning..[insert]”? Lol.
Any urgency being shown for more TLAMs for the UK and the rest of the NSM sets? Just for an incremental increase in lethality for the current platforms?
Riiiight……. So the UK develops and builds a ballistic missile, exports it, but doesn’t inventory the missile in UK defence, relying instead on ‘informed decisions, procurement horizons, and market engagement. ‘
What a load of shit.
Not quite that bad if we have the know how and a hot sovereign production line – that is many steps ahead of nothing.
Yep. That’s blown a few balloons on here.
Yes I know what you mean but let’s be positive it is an enabler for future ballistic missile developments alone or with partners so we aren’t starting from scratch while giving us the option of acquiring the ready made and available solution or developments thereof almost immediately if required. A far better place than we were in even a year ago and otherwise probably since the sixties. It’s the cancellation at any time that concerns me. Because if a peace treaty does happen you can see the blinkered short term view ignoring US intent happening sadly.
I get your feeling, I’d just say that effective defence is industrial in nature… and considering how the yanks are behaving – it seems savvy with short enough timelines stated (12 months right?), and considering the benefits of sovereign know how being developed too (i sense we’ll need it)
There’s even stated benchmarks for production.
All that being said it’s fair to say it’s ambitious (and why wouldn’t we operate it too)
Your feeling definitely isn’t out of place though
It’s a shame but I did wonder a 600km range ground launched ballistic missile is handy for the UK but less the a definite need.. what we could do with is an long range or even intermediate range ballistic missile..2500-4500km range. With US stability seeming to be AWOL we need a plan B for deterrence against a Russian nuclear strike on the UK.. and an IRBM programme is really the only way… because one day the US may no longer support the UK with maintenance of its trident missiles. Also Russian can hit the UK with conventional IRMBs so having the ability to fire conventional IRBMs or long range ballistics straight back is a good deterrent..
So I’m happy with this if the UK can supply Ukraine with a good conventional strategic strike weapon in numbers for Ukrainian security and as long as they then use it to booststrap the UK into the long and intermediate ballistic missile game…
It might well be of use for deep battlefield strikes against logistics.
Can’t rely on the tiny RAF for everything.
That is true.. probably would work for the battle group in the Baltics.. give them an immediate deep strike option to solve a problem.
Totally agree with that. My biggest fear would be a naive Govt seeing some form of ‘peace’ in Ukraine and a new Democratic President or simply strong mid term showings in Congress, deciding Trump was just a blip (as the Govt clearly did first time around). That would be very short sighted, after all when Biden got it he sold the line that the US was back. At best they are going to be unreliable so options need to be kept very open.
If Russia can strike the UK with existing IRBMs why don’t the powers that be show a bit more sense and even a tad of urgency to get a layered GBAD up and running? Its not really funny the absence of even a MRAD and paltry Shorad for bases. What the Navy has put on land and vice versa. Shared missile stocks and systems for maximised utilisation. A bit simplified, but is it that difficult?
Putin may well turn down the chance of a Trump peace plan and the war drags on.
But the cynic will say that proposals to be presented in 12 months time, plus making the things means this isn’t a near term possibility
If there is peace. Ukr builds their own , or sources Korean on or Turkish product.
It will be no shock if this becomes another Mantis, Taranis / insert proposed UK weapon that gets binned
Now if we really had ambition. The missile becomes a platform for above atmosphere BM interception for a GBAD solution, or a launcher for low orbit military satellite’s ( expensive ones will be shot taken out by Chinese kill vehicles), etc etc.
Israel has adapted LORA and other BM for air launch. As Typhoon ages that would be a useful SEAD capability. Lob a BM at S500 batteries from 600km.
The government has committed to spend around £3 billion per year on military support to Ukraine at least through the end of the decade. So it makes financial and strategic sense to spend as much of that as possible on UK-made kit and arms—Ukraine gets the weapons it needs, and the UK benefits through skilled jobs, industrial capacity, and technical know-how. In this case, we’ll get real-world data as soon as the system is fielded, which is far more valuable than peacetime trials, and can mature the system with operational feedback. I don’t see a mad rush for our Army to field it immediately—doing so would require new units, training, logistics, and doctrine (and we have enough of a mess to sort out at the moment)—but at least the option will be there for the future. Also, surely the aim must be for exports, especially in the Baltics; seeing it used in a real-world scenario should help with that—as long as the system proves effective.
Interesting. I mentioned previously it felt as though there were too many new strike programmes, from FC/ASW, PrSM and the Anglo-German project to Brakestop, Nightfall, the sovereign hypersonic weapon, et cetera. Whilst these each address different ranges, flight profiles and quality, I don’t think the MoD has the finances to fund some six or more new weapons development programmes simultaneously, alongside a variety of other programmes (Spear-3 integration, Meteor integration, Meteor updates).
This is odd, because the bloat is maintained, money is expended, but no capability is actually procured for the UK at the end of that. I understand the need to help Ukraine, and fully believe we should, but perhaps money would be better spent if the MoD were whittling things down to perhaps a core three programmes – PrSM, FC/ASW and Brakestop. These seem by far to be the most tangible of the planned programmes. Focus upon these, and begin producing systems rapidly. If you want to assist Ukraine, deliver them a constant and reliable stream of Brakestop, for example, or the FC/ASW, stripped of certain technologies if required.
Let’s be really honest – does the UK need a hypersonic missile, or a 2000km+ cruise missile, on top of FC/ASW and others?