Brimstone 3 integration with the RAF’s Protector remotely piloted aircraft has moved into the analysis stage after further weapons testing in the United States and UK, Defence Minister Luke Pollard has said.
The update came in response to a written parliamentary question from Conservative MP Ben Obese-Jecty, who asked what progress had been made on integrating Brimstone 3 with Protector following earlier delays identified in previous answers and the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority’s Major Projects Annual Report.
Pollard said the earlier delays had now been addressed through a revised testing programme involving activity on both sides of the Atlantic.
He said: “Previous delays have been overcome through a revised plan of combined USA and UK based testing, with final elements of safe separation trials concluding in the USA in June 2026 and further UK testing being conducted in August 2026.”
Safe separation testing is intended to demonstrate that a weapon can be released from an aircraft without creating an unacceptable risk to the platform or the weapon itself. The completion of those trials represents a key step towards clearing Brimstone 3 for operational use from Protector. The remaining work now centres on assessment of the trial results before the necessary clearances can be issued.
Pollard said: “Brimstone 3 trial data is undergoing necessary analysis required prior to issuance of operational clearances.”
Brimstone 3 is a precision-guided weapon intended for use against a range of ground targets and forms part of the planned weapons package for Protector, which is replacing the RAF’s Reaper fleet. The same parliamentary answer also provided an update on Paveway IV, another weapon intended for Protector.
Pollard said: “Paveway IV has been operationally available since March 2026.”
Paveway IV is already available operationally, while Brimstone 3 remains subject to analysis of trial data and the subsequent clearance process.
The latest update is significant because the Brimstone 3 work had previously been affected by delays. According to Pollard, those issues have now been overcome through the revised joint US-UK testing plan, with the final elements of safe separation testing completed in June and additional UK activity carried out in August.
Good, Obese -Jecty is really getting through some questions, though Ministers will be as slippery as an eel if allowed to.
Also reading on X some of his other questions that reveal that Boxer batch 2 seems to be dead, no surprise there, and that HMG are fiddling and fudging Army personnel numbers again.
Nothing changes.
Hi Daniele thanks for the info, very interesting, As far as I can see future orders for boxer seem to be more based on jobs that it’s essential for it like mobile fires (RCH155) and less on utility roles.
Only the British Army could think it was acceptable to be using a £5 million vehicle in utility roles. Most Boxer users are now combining it with the Patria 6X6 which I’m hoping we do as well.
The Army needs to start getting use to good enough systems rather than Gucci gold plated versions because we can never hope to build mass any other way. The Patria 6X6 is £1 million a piece, 5 times cheaper than Boxer and 10 times cheaper than Ajax. That’s the armoured vehicle we should be procuring in the thousands and leaving the others in the hundreds for specialists roles.
Also given the cost and complexity of Ajax it’s insane that anyone would think it’s should come in Ambulance, command and recovery variants. CVR(T) did this because it was cheap.
No one ever expected Warrior or Challenger 1 to come in an Ambulance variants (some warriors were converted in Afghanistan for different reasons) so why should the Army’s most expensive reconnaissance vehicle because some route a requirement in 2006 based on a 1960’s concept.
Morning mate.
Fully agree, I’ve been hoping for a big Patria order for years, Boxer is too expensive as an all roles beast, despite it’s many qualities.
Details which are not confirmed as things temain, deliberately, vague.
Seems the 120mm Mortar version planned might end up on Patria, like Germany are planning.
The Boxer recovery variant seems dead as well, with the REME to buy another heavier truck instead of using both Boxer Recovery and the MAN 8×8 SV.
The Boxer replacement for Titan is nowhere to be seen either, hopefully that utter madness is dead as well. Nor the Serpens variant, more Gold plating.
Assume the only survivor is RCH155 which I guess will be amongst the 600 ordered already and the vast sums allocated to batch 2 get spent on something like CAUS, GBAD, and more proper Artillery.
The glacial pace of weapon integration is the Achilles heel of modern aircraft and I can imagine the problem will only become worse by the introduction of drones and autonomous platforms.
The software capabilities of defence contractors seems to be laughable and it seems increasingly likely that companies who’s histories are almost entirely based on creating propeller aircraft in world war 2 are just not cut out to build and operate modern platforms which are far more to do with software than hardware.
Understandably different situation but the Ukrainians seem to be able to integrate everything with it working well
Yes, however no defence contractors seem to be involved. It’s DSTL or the Ukrainian’s themselves badging solutions. They can get 80 or 90% of the capability in weeks or months.
Give an aerospace company a software job to do with a contract for 100% capability and expect to spend billions and the best part of a decade. This is the problem with outsourcing.
Perish the thought, HMG encouraging the MIC to milk the MoD and the taxpayer dry?
Never!