In a development under the AUKUS defence partnership, the UK, US, and Australia have agreed to integrate the UK’s Sting Ray torpedoes onto P-8A submarine-hunting aircraft.
This decision strengthens the alliance’s collective anti-submarine capabilities, enhancing their ability to counter emerging maritime.
A Royal Navy announcement stated:
“AUKUS teams have been involved in this autumn’s major test of military autonomous systems in the air, on land and at sea hosted by the Portuguese, while Australia is about to host the second of its similar exercises.
The nations also agreed to follow the UK’s lead by integrating Sting Ray torpedoes onto P8-A submarine-hunting aircraft. Sting Ray – which is about to undergo a multimillion-pound upgrade to deal with the latest submarine threats – is the principal anti-submarine weapon of the Fleet Air Arm.”
The Sting Ray torpedo, already a mainstay of the Royal Navy’s anti-submarine defences, is set to undergo a multi-million-pound upgrade to ensure it can handle the latest submarine threats. The weapon is the primary anti-submarine tool used by the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm and Surface Fleet. Its integration onto the P-8A Poseidon aircraft — which is operated by all three AUKUS nations — will enhance the fleet’s ability to detect and engage underwater targets.
The agreement was discussed as part of a broader AUKUS meeting at the Old Royal Naval College in Greenwich, where Defence Secretaries and Ministers from the UK, US, and Australia met to strengthen their cooperation.
Alongside this technological development, training remains a core aspect of the AUKUS alliance. To date, 250 Australian personnel have been trained in nuclear-powered submarine operations by the Royal Navy, with three Royal Australian Navy (RAN) officers recently completing the UK’s Nuclear Reactor course.
A second group of Australian officers is set to begin training at HMS Sultan in November.
AUKUS cooperation also extends to joint military exercises. This autumn, teams from the three nations participated in trials of autonomous systems across air, land, and sea, hosted by Portugal. Similar exercises will be held in Australia, where the Royal Navy has previously participated with its divers, mine warfare experts, and the patrol ship HMS Tamar.
It is great that the upgrade path and future of Stingray are recognised as critical and funded.
Fantastic bit of news for UK industry and years of patient MoD investment.
I don’t understand the article
Does this mean that the Americans and Aus will use Stingray on P8 i.e we are exporting it?
If so, excellent. SR is by all accounts better than mk54 and this indicates confidence in our defence export industry.
Gunbuster, you won in the end.
Probably. We don’t want to manufacture it stateside because of ITAR. One of the reasons for AUKUS is to get round ITAR as there were increasing areas where US was finding it impossible to get collaboration because of the insistence that any tech DoD touched was covered by ITAR. This was driving up costs. It was also messing up E7 and a few other things. It is relatively logical as USA won’t accept symmetrical USFMS taxes. So nobody wants to develop something and then have its export controlled by USA particularly when USA isn’t very predictable ATM. Saner heads said… Read more »
So are we building it here and selling abroad or will BAE in the relative countries set up production?
I suspect the latter but it’s a good thing either way.
There may be good reasons for just-get-on-with-it which means ramping up production from BAe.
We are not talking making 6” shells here so the numbers involved *may* not justify multiple separate lines.
Element of common sense here using and refining the best product on the market.
Indeed and having a choice of weapons too so each can widen capability and doubt by the enemy and so each party can supply the other as needed, so far greater flexibility and threat. Ultimate superior capability is the cherry of course.
I guess it’ll be built here, maybe in Australia too. I imagine this will be a commonly managed stockpile, to get around the US domestic politics around buying international. But could be wrong.
Australia uses mk54 from P8 & its Seahawk helicopters (which are all US systems), however uses MU90 Eurotorp on surface ships. So it’s already utilising 2 LWT – can’t see utilising 3 LWT. P8 upgrade doesn’t help the helo equation. I think even US know mk54 is not the best out there. Something that may have escaped some, AUKUS allows room to move within the partnership while at the same time giving someone (something) to blame for what would have been otherwise career ending decisions (domestically). UK, US & AU all have something to offer. US is especially self focused.… Read more »
I don’t understand it, Norway was already paying to integrate stingray on P8. America can’t buy foreign weapons by law and zero mention of Australia actually buying it.
Sounds like another AUKUS gimmick to me.
US can buy foreign weapons in certain circumstances.
AUKUS being one of them. It was the whole point of the other pillars really that Uncle Sam realised it couldn’t afford to out tech everyone.
Why is USA who built AWACS buying the E7 that little old AUS made. Why are AUKUS subs mostly a UK design.
Other people do some elements impressively well.
If you want a poster child for how not to do things look at USN warship development that got waylaid by NIH and Pork Barrel Inc.
Very rare for the US to ever buy weapons from anyone and they have to write to congress when they do and give justification. AUKUS certainly does not change that.
The Popeyes missile from Israel is the last one I can think of and obviously Israel is Americas greatest ally.
E7 may have been initially launched in Australia but it’s a US plane and Radar integrated by a US defence contractor.
If the US and Australia are buying stingray where is the announcement.
Don’t know if they are going to acquire it or not but one presumes integration would enable that once completed successfully. Is the upgraded Stingray actually available yet? Integration and development itself certainly makes sense. Time will tell but this may also, at least initially, be a sensible move to make the weapon useable amongst all three in a conflict where in the Pacific re supply is a substantial effort. Flexibility of sharing what’s available is sensible and likely vital as the Americans would be having to supply all users of this platform not a pretty scenario. Now all buyers… Read more »
The USA uses/used loads of foriegn bought kit. Our 105mm light guns, the Harrier etc from a host of allied nations.
To be fair these were all licence built in the US which can, apparently, lead to ITAR issues, but yeh the UK has exported kit to the US, from Flower Class corvettes, Spitfires and Beaufighters under lend lease, to Canberra bombers licenced as the Martin B-57 Canberra… More up to date I would add the M777 155mm to your list as it was designed by Vickers in response to a British Army requirement for a towed 155mm light enough to be lifted by a Chinook. Two guns were developed, one by Royal Ordance and the Vickers with the latter winning.… Read more »
In terms of weapons bought from outside the US, latest example might be NSM which the USN is fitting to LCS and constellation classes.
NSM….
Spike NLOS…
In all circumstances they end up using one of the major US defence contractors as a local supplier though…in NSM’s case thats Raytheon.
Agreed with the growth of China allied to the threat (if unreliable) threat of Russia and then their acolytes which might expand further sadly if we don’t keep a cap on it, even the US (well the sensible ones at the top currently) understands it can’t do everything alone and create the mass increasingly required. It needs all the contributing friends it can get and many other Countries can do things that it doesn’t need to completely match or copy. Still learning this lesson but it will need to suck it up and show compromise in addition to simply urging… Read more »
The US Navy were seriously looking at buying Brimstone a few years ago, for engaging small surface targets. They were testing it, on being questioned in Congressional committee they stated that they liked it a lot, members of the committee were enthusiastic because a) the Navy were, and b), it was an off-the-shelf, combat-ready system.
However in the end, other options were pursued. Politics getting in the way, rather than hard and fast rules.
It’s the same for every single weapon system the US military ever looked at from aboard. MRTT 330 tanker being the prime example, even after Airbus was selected and even though Airbus manufactures in the US and even though Lockheed was the domestic partner they still re bid to Boeing. Boeing paid off the Airforce personnel in charge of procurement and got away with it. Hopefully that deal along with the rest of the corruption finally bankrupts Boeing and leaves them where they belong firmly on the scrap heap of history. Under no circumstances will the US buy foreign weapons… Read more »
The English Electric Canberra says otherwise
Also to me. I haven’t really seen any benefit to the UK from this deal so far, it all seems in the advantage of Australia.
The Australian’s are giving us a boat load of cash to upgrade Barrow and other facilties…
Any source to that? Why are they paying for the upgrades when they are building the ships domestically?
However I wasn’t talking money, I was talking defence. All the agreements have been making Australia forces stronger by information sharing with them, nothing in reverse so far. So far it’s just a arms sale, which all this nonsense of partnership isn’t needed on top of as Australia is just buying what it needs.
Boats not ships…we’re talking Subs not T26…
And a lot of the work will be done in the UK and shipped to Australia.
The main pillar is the nuclear information sharing which has never been done before.
The Aussies are effectively subsidising our Astute replacement…which is a very good thing…
From what I read they aren’t subsidising, they are taking the benefits from the US/UK programs and letting us take the risks, same with the t26 they are building.
NSM?
Norway wasn’t paying to integrate Stingray…
UK was the one paying and it only decided recently.
Norwegian’s will be happy about it though…
One thing not mentioned is if High Altitude release is still a thing…the Mk.54 with HAAWC has taken an age to reach IOC….there is no mention of the UK adopting such a solution for Stingray…
I see it as AUKUS being involved in contributing and spreading the costs of Stingray integration on the P8, but each P8 user is still free to use the Weapons of their own choice.
Yup I think that is one useful string to this bow, but more generally compatibility and flexibility is becoming a vital factor in being well positioned in any new conflict. Even the US has to understand that and I’m sure Britain is pushing this in all manner of weaponry. Done right it actually benefits everyone. After all American platform or not E7 exists because of Australia, has saved the US time and money and will benefit from its sales. So easing restrictions can indeed benefit in many lateral ways. RocketLab is another of a great many further examples of foreign… Read more »
Yes, I think the comments have made that clear.
It does seem odd that there has been such a fuss made about something that in theory was already happening, though, and the language around the announcement seems to imply they will be operating it themselves.
I don’t read it that way. I think this is simply another Labour defence article stating the bleeding obvious.
On this occasion, the UK is integrating Stingray, obviously this modified ‘code’ will be added to the core operators fleet.
It doesn’t mean the Australians or the US will operate Stingray, they will contine with Mk48.
So basically, all three fleets can theoretically use both.
That’s how I read it anyway.
Norway already paid to get Stingray integrated onto their P-8As, it’s their operational ASW torpedo- this announcement is more than that.
I suspect that this will be a commonly managed stockpile, to get around the US domestic politics around buying international.
That would be great, but I have my doubts….
Stingray is not operational on P-8.
Norway has never paid for integration. The UK are though, but it was only decided recently. Norgies should benefit though…
This isn’t about a shared stockpile…its a bit of nothing really.
I had to go and do some Googling, because I was certain I’d seen that Norway uses them for fixed wing ASW. Turns out they use them on their P-3s rather than P8s- my apologies; shows that it’s always worth double checking memory with a fresh Google search if you’re nearer 40 than 30…
Yep that’s another, perhaps main string to this news. And yes the Govt want and need all the good news it can get whether it has real substance or not. But at least it opens opportunities where before they were shuttered.
👍
I suspect that it means a common user approach so you can use any weapon from any nation if on a deployment. You don’t need to bring your own toys to play together!
So a common stockpile?
That seems sensible, but I wonder if it will sometimes result in us using the inferior mk54 when deployed away from Britain.
Congratulations on the final victory! 🥳
A presumably intuitively obvious measure. One wonders how many meetings, briefings, staff reports, etc., we’re required to build a tri-national consensus that flexibility is the key to airpower? 🤔😉
…were…🙄
A wartime move? US P8 aircraft operating from the UK or Australia could use local weapon stockpiles and vis versa.
I suspect not, probably just an upgrade package agreed between the members which will include the integration, I assume with the uk paying for that part, but we will see. So far Australia has only brought US weapons including for its version of the t26.
Norway has already paid for integration of Stingray onto P-8A I believe, it’s their operational air-launched ASW weapon.
It would still involve a contract to upgrade the UK fleet, assuming the integration isn’t Norway specific by contract.
Norway have been operating Stingray for years, so it depends what was allowed for in our original contract for the P-8As; I’d imagine any software at least that’s required to allow release could easily have been on our later-procured blocks. I’d also be surprised if any physical changes are required, but I may be wrong.
At the very least Norway paid for the integration and will want a licencing charge from the UK to it to take advantage of them, so they can get some of their investment back.
True (almost – MT90 is EU), but most of the sensors are not. Most sensors are AU, UK or EU. It’s why US anti submarine warfare sucks. Half of Europe field better LWT & better sonar.
I guess Europe had a much bigger sub threats than the US.
Norway should be happy too. P8 & Stingray user.
All to the good.
Australia needs to be integrated and equipped with SSNs yesterday.
Labour really need to invest in SSN building for Australia and T26 sales to Norway.
T31s to a Polish led, EU funded, ‘Baltic’ Squadron would take a huge amount of pressure off the Anglo-Norwegian, Danish and Benelux fleets.
(Yes, I know Lux is landlocked).
That latter is certainly an important option, I certainly don’t see Britain wanting to use much of its precious fleet there with so much to cover.
Might this be a quid pro quo for Spearfish? UK produces the lightweight torpedo for air and surface launch and the US produces the heavyweight Mk 48 AdCap torpedo for AUKUS.
We just put spearfish through an expensive mid life upgrade so very unlikely.
Spearfish is not Air Launched no?.
No. It’s wire guided.
No, submarine only
That would give the RAN at least the option of also using Spearfish in their subs if they ever wanted to. Hell, why not the US too?! And have an Aukus-Spearfish… LOL . I wonder what the Canadians might adopt for their up to 12 new subs?
Integrating a UK torpedo into the P8? Good lord, what is the world coming to! We’ll have Storm Shadow as Common NATO Long Range Missile, next…
I think it’s more likely that existing day to day supply will continue. However in the event of any conflict, having any Poseidon from any nation, being able to use any torpedo from any nation, is been seen as a way to enhance pooled resources.
Spot on, this is the core reasoning I’m sure.
Good news to hear other nations going for a UK weapon system 😏 OOps forgot the flag 🇬🇧
According to Flightradar24 WT001 the RAF’s first E7 is leaving Birmingham Airport tomorrow (1st October) at 11.15am and arriving half an hour or so later at Southend to get its RAF uniform.. I would have gone to see it leave Brum , but I have a meeting 🙁 Some may lucky and spot it somewhere…
Pretty cloudy in Brum I’m afraid today.
Source: I’m in Brum 😛
Only concern I have is if we have to take on Mk48 ADCAP on our future subs in exchange for this. Stingray is, by all accounts, an objectively better weapon than Mk54 Mod2- or at least it’s passed all of its evaluations for littoral engagements and is heading into another round of upgrades. Spearfish has also just been upgraded, so am willing to bet it’s at least as good as the latest mod Mk48. No reason to be abandoning all that development. I would be ok with clearing our subs for using Mk48 and holding a common stock of them… Read more »
Stingray and Spearfish were built to replace older weapons which in the case of Stingray was to replace the American ASW torpedo which had killed off the 18″ Mark 30-Mod.1 Dealer-B and Spearfish was to replace the not so great Mark 24 Tigerfish and the elderly Mark 8 torpedo
Mk48 ADCAP has Australian IP in it designed around the Pacific. So unlikely to change. Mk54 though is mediocre at best.
Reasonably certain that by the time SSN-A is commissioned, and SSN(X) is designed and in production, there will be one common AUKUS designed heavyweight and one lightweight torpedo. Target 2040 +/- several years.
I’m sure your right but I hope your wrong, that will be one more weapon system we don’t make if we have a common torpedo and one less thing we can export.
I rather see us share the technology than common design.
Perhaps multiple manufacturing sites in multiple nations? Master AUKUS list of approved export customers agreed between the partners. 🤔
Additionally, reasonably confident the successor lightweight torpedo will be capable of boosted VL from Mk-41 tubes. Predict purchase by all three navies.
There will be some fascinating R&D and production industrial consortiums developed over the next several decades as a byproduct of AUKUS initiatives; uncertain re correct labeling, perhaps transnational mega-conglomerates?
A newer ASROC could come sooner than later for the T26 and Constellation’s.
Doesn’t need to be. What needs to happen is integration. Fit a different torpedo? Push the button that says tube 3 now has a Spearfish torpedo. Torpedo tubes are (in general) a NATO agreed size. So you should be able to fire any torpedo from any NATO spec submarine, ship, helicopter or plane – but you can’t. Everyone works with blinkers on.
Does that mean USAF P38s will carry them or just that the US allos them to be integrated for the UK & Aus rather than the American ASW toprpedo?
If USAF is reduced to utilizing P-38s as MPAs, the war would not be going terribly well for our side, and it may be time to explore alternatives. 🤔😉😁
Doh! P8s….🙃
US Navy actually!
Seems only sensible that if you can detect em out in the big wide ocean then killing them seems like a sensible idea. It also helps with our shortage of frigates in the short term.
Not sure what to make of this. I’d be pleasantly and very surprised if US and AUS actually bought Sting Ray. Indeed can new Sting Ray torps even be produced anymore?? The original production run must have ended decades ago I’d imagine with various upgrades only ever since.