It has been reported that the United Kingdom intends to design and deploy its own hypersonic cruise missile by the year 2030.
This is part of an aim to match the capabilities of global powers such as China, Russia, and the United States, The Telegraph reports.
The project seeks to develop a missile that can travel at speeds exceeding Mach 5, which is five times faster than the speed of sound. According to The Telegraph, the Ministry of Defence is intent on ensuring the missile is both designed and manufactured within the UK, with aspirations to have it operational by the end of this decade.
The development of a hypersonic weapon, which significantly surpasses the speed of conventional cruise missiles, could potentially allow the UK to bypass modern air defence systems due to its rapid speed and ability to manoeuvre mid-flight.
Details on the launch platform for the hypersonic missile remain undecided, with options including deployment from land, fighter jets, or warships. The plans are reportedly in the preliminary stages, and the Ministry of Defence has refrained from offering extensive comments due to the sensitive nature of the technology involved.
A spokesperson stated, “We are pursuing hypersonic technologies to further develop UK sovereign advanced capabilities. We continue to invest in our equipment to meet current and future threats.”
Not out of nowhere
This confirmation that a missile is in development hasn’t appeared out of the blue, I reported last year that the Ministry of Defence had launched an initiative to advance its Hypersonic Strike Capability, as detailed in a contract notice on the GOV.UK ‘Find a Tender’ service. Published on December 8, 2023, under the reference 2023/S 000-036268, the notice details the “Hypersonic Technologies & Capability Development Framework”.
This framework, as stated in the notice, is “to accelerate development of the United Kingdom Hypersonic Strike Capability and to provide a route to market for future operational elements of hypersonic and adjacent technologies.” The initiative, estimated to be worth £1 billion and spanning up to seven years, is not just focused on developing advanced weaponry but also aims to “facilitate collaboration between MoD, industry, and academia.”
The procurement will cover a broad range of services and supplies across eight distinct lots. It includes “research, systems, components, technology, the provision of infrastructure, testing, and other related expertise and materials.” These will encompass both ‘functional components’ such as “propulsion systems, airframes, flight control computer systems, guidance systems and sensors” and ‘non-functional components’ like “test and evaluation, platform integration, academic research.”
The framework is designed to be flexible, allowing for the “periodic onboarding of new suppliers approximately every 6 to 12 months,” ensuring it remains relevant in a “fast changing political, technological and regulatory landscape.”
Here’s the description.
“As part of the Team Hypersonics (UK) delivery strategy, the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) Defence Equipment & Support (DE&S) intends to establish a multi-supplier Hypersonic Technologies & Capability Development Framework Agreement (the Framework). The aim of the Framework is to accelerate development of the United Kingdom Hypersonic Strike Capability and to provide a route to market for future operational elements of hypersonic and adjacent technologies. The Framework will be used to facilitate collaboration between MoD, industry and academia to accelerate the acquisition of an advanced Hypersonic Strike Capability.
The nature of the procurement will involve the provision of services and supplies across 8 (eight) distinct lots. Descriptions of each of the lots are further identified within this notice and the draft Invitation to Tender (ITT) documents, accessible through the Defence Sourcing Portal (DSP). The Framework will be used to appoint suppliers to deliver services and supplies to support the research, development and testing of hypersonic technologies with varying Technical Readiness Levels (TRLs). The maturity of the services and supplies provided under the resulting Call Off contracts will be up to TRL 9.
Services and supplies to be procured through the Framework are likely to include, but will not be limited to research, systems, components, technology, the provision of infrastructure, testing and other related expertise and materials across two categories, ‘functional components’ and ‘non-functional components’. Functional components could include liquid propellants, solid propellants, propulsion systems, airframes, flight control computer systems, guidance systems and sensors, communications and data links systems, system and parts integration, physical flight control systems, warheads, power supply and distribution, battery, actuators (fin & thrust control), high temperature materials and seekers. Non-functional components could include test and evaluation, platform integration, academic research, system design authority, modelling and simulation, specialists, integrated solution, thermal management, infrastructure, mission planning, assurance.”
Applicants for the framework will also participate in a “Restricted” procurement process, initially responding to a Pre-Qualification Questionnaire, accessible through the Defence Sourcing Portal. Successful applicants will then be invited to the Invitation to Tender stage.
The notice specifies that “Task orders under the Framework will be awarded as Call-Off contracts, either through a Mini-Competition or, in certain circumstances, through a Direct Award process.”
Join the V-Max?
VMax is a demonstrator for a hypersonic glider for the SLBM.
Not a conventional hypersonic path.
Does this mean the Anglo-French missile will be subsonic or have we gone for our own option instrad.
I was wondering that too. Last I’d heard was that one of the options for FC/ASW was hypersonic.
The latest on FC/ASW was a subsonic land attack ready in 2028. And a supersonic anti ship ready for 2034. No idea how this hypersonic missile fits into that plan and no idea how they plan on managing it by 2030
The hypersonic missile is just a gag designed to keep china the USA and Russia wasting their money on chocolate fire guards. FC/ASW won’t be affected.
Yes, I heard the same. I could see the supersonic one developing into something hypersonic potentially, but this hypersonic weapon wasn’t on the FC/ASW lists that I’ve seen.
My gut take is that FC/ASW is the predictable achievable plan and this programme is reflecting the increasing perception that a hypersonic missile may well be required by 2030+ and this is thus trying to create all the mechanisms required to make it happen in addition to the current Anglo French missiles. Such a missile would likely be for high end targets otherwise less susceptible to other types of missiles so it’s unlikely you would ever wish to only have a hypersonic option just as in aircraft you want a mix of 4th and 5th Gen airframes. Somewhat surprised mind… Read more »
Ah, sorry, was replying to one of your other comments- looks like you and I envisage a similar use for these hypersonic missiles!
I agree, unless there’s something significant we don’t know, in service by 2030 is a stretch. Unless we buy something American off the shelf.
I’d have thought that the French would be interested in a hypersonic FC/ASW 2 extension programme, so like you I’m a little surprised we haven’t gone that route. Maybe they don’t have the budget for it at the moment..?
French focus on hypersonics is primarily on the ASMP replacement.
They keep that very compartmentalised for obvious reasons.
That’s fair, I can understand them wanting to keep that to themselves. And given where we are, our hypersonic requirements probably aren’t going to be directly applicable between the two.
Expensive. Is it really needed now?
What we have seen is the USA weapons are super expensive. The U.K. missile needs to be cheaper if enough are to be bought. Able to scale the size so it can fit in F35b bay, tempest, torpedo tube, submarine VLS, ships also.
I agree, Storm shadow is 20 years old and appears to be almost 100% effective against S400. FC/ASW will be a generation beyond SS. Hypersonic weapons are a gimmick. Stealth and low level, low cost fielded in numbers will always be superior to high speed high altitude high cost.
Problem is you need both.
A lot of FC/ASW and then the next generation.
Otherwise you end up with a warmed version of Storm Shadow…..at some point that is obsolete.
It’s the $100 million dollar cost of a hypersonic weapon vs the $1 million cost of a stealthy cruise missile. The Hypersonic’s will need to be 100 times more effective to justify their price tag. Also as computers get smarter so too will cruise missiles able to perform swarm attacks or loiter where as hypersonics are always going to have limitations in how much they can deviate from a course, loitering and swarming will always be effectively impossible.
Misses the point it’s horses for courses it’s not about a one for one replacement you use a hypersonic for very high end well protected targets or with other missile types though in far fewer numbers to increase the overall effectiveness of the combined attack.
It’s not going to be $100m a round.
It won’t be cheap but there is no reason why a rocket powered hypersonic should not be a ‘reasonable’ cost.
Totally right.
In view of known facts about the performance of any likely enemy, I am with you. As far as I understand hypersonic missiles would have issues connected to the plasma wave they create around them at high mach numbers.
These things are devastating against infrastructure. Russia being wide open to attack on account of its size would be more easily deterred if we possess them.
Would you be able to rely on the USA in 5 years let alone 10 years time?
Perhaps a marker to join an AUSUS hypersonic.
I think the post WW2 USA is largely a thing of the past, isolationism will just continue to grow, I don’t think anyone should be banking on US security guarantees or even weapon supplies in future. No a major issue for the UK with the exclusion of Trident D5 and its replacement. I think we should start our own SLBM program now maybe buy the design for M51 from the French but build our own version. Congress is too powerful now and there are just too many cooks that can throw a spanner in the works for little to no… Read more »
Isolationalist USA is a delusion the USA has from time to time. Then something bites it hard on the ass & it becomes responsable again. I can’t see much more dangerous than a Trump Putin fanboy presidency who behaves like a spoilt kid well out of his depth in a paddling pool. With Russia & China making mischeif, hopefully this spell will pass.
UK included, Europe needs to pull its weight & responsabilities. Combined there’s enough resources to oppose Putin given the leadership & wisdom, which is more the problem we have.
Indeed Europe has ten times the economy of Russia and a far larger population, we really should combined be able to piss in their Baltic Sea to paraphrase Monty Python without US support should that ever dissipate. With Trump sating apparently in 2020 that He as President would never come to Europes aid in a war in Europe we certainly have to take that risk very seriously. Mind you the image of Putin hacking around on his Scottish golf links might change his mind, if he still has a mind by then.
That would surely be closely examined by any French president or any majority that would come out of elections. No issue for an increase of cooperation with UK from any side of electoral corp in France. The fact that we currently are the only nuclear power of the EU is a chance, but not 100% perceived this way by Europeans of fellow countrymen. One thing is sure: we don’t want UK loosing it’s nuclear submarine deterrent. As far as I am concerned, I am looking for the 3rd component to reemerge (ground to ground missile + tunnels) for France &… Read more »
Seems like Taylor Greene can practically do it on her own with her conspiracy mutterings.
TBH I think we should build new missiles alongside the French. They must be planning on renewing their own SSBN deterrent sometime in the near future.
I was wondering that, you have to have something to offer if you are going to interest the Americans.
True which is why Russian missiles (all but the Avangaard anyway) slow down before impact. However some new US missiles won’t be doing that not that I know how they get around the sensor situation but one presumes advances or work arounds can be effective though that’s what they are presently testing and information is of course limited, they just said last months demonstration was a ‘success’ without any real details and that’s of a missile that everyone thought had been cancelled but now think may not be the case so much is speculative presently. By the way the US… Read more »
There is so much bad info out there about hypersonic it’s just baffling. For one at least in US doctrine, they are not there to replace other missiles but their mission is the prosecution of high value, time sensitive targets in denied environments. Also there have been articles published years ago where US military officials have publicly stated that this “plasma shield” does not affect their ability to communicate with the weapon. It’s very easy to find this statement via google.
A lot depends on the design of the hypersonic vehicle. Which can dictate how and where the plasma is generated. It normally starts on the nose of the vehicle and then the leading edges of wings/fins. The density of the air also has a major factor on plasma generation. The higher you go the air becomes less dense, so the plasma being generated can also be thinner. For example a vehicle travelling Mach 7+ at sea level is very likely going to generate a thick plasma, whereas at 250,000ft perhaps not so much. Atmospheric plasma is made up from disassociated… Read more »
Totally agree. I think we should spend money on the ability to knock these things out however anything more than another version of Storm Shadow seems pointless at this time.
Not sure. Our air defense (Aster) is giving a hard time to Houtis missiles. Otto melara 76mm fun works. German Guépards works. May be Sky et and Cam will work perfectly as well. So, even if Russia fooled itself with crappy air defense, nothing proves that China will be crappy as well. If not, we need something that will win, first time, for sure. Naval operation are so unforgiving…
Nothing can be doubted with Chinese. Every defence has to work first time. One thing Europe and the USA do seem to do is lots of testing and then understating the results.
Well if you don’t do the research now you won’t have a choice to make come the 30s.
True. A Tempest like project might to me seem like a natural project for that sort of injection of cash. I suppose there has been some work in this direction already so I suppose – why not.
Don’t totally agree while slower stealthier missiles can do most of the donkey work there will be tougher targets especially in the next decade where sophisticated hypersonics will be very desirable and possibly essential even. The missiles that the US is developing are a generation or more ahead of current Russian missiles. Equally while SS has been successful don’t be fooled by the complexity of the operations to make it so a lot of spoofing and planning goes into their flight paths to avoid as much air defence as possible and in some complex circumstances and targets they are unlikely… Read more »
Russian developments might well depend on how they get on in Ukraine. If Russia loses they might be in trouble for a while. Their economy will tank and everyone is losing interest in fossil fuels. China is a different problem – they have a plan and the US seems to be taking it personally.
Some of the so call Hypersonic missles are just ballistc missles with a glide vehicle. Yes they’re hypersonic but a huge nunmber of ballistic missiles are. So I guess it depends which way we go.
Another issue is launch tubes, MK41 is too small to launch a decent hypersonic missile and why a new launch system is being developed by Lockheed for the Zumwalts and Virginias. We’ll have launch platform problem.
Expensive and a lot of time to manufacture. If we are looking at this from a policing or limited ‘war’ then stockpiles of missiles might be managable. When it comes to an all out peer conflict missile stock would be exhausted within a couple of weeks or even days. The is also something to be said for the throw weight capable of old style naval guns.
I’d be deeply surprised if we get a hypersonic weapon that will fit in the F35B bay, the kinzhal and other existing weapons are huge. They need the size to fit the fuel and motor big enough to maintain the speed over any kind of useful distance.
the Stand In Attack Weapon based on the AARGM (modern HARM) fits in an f-35 bay, travels at mach 4 and is available now. lets face it there is not a difference between mach 4 and mach 5 aside from a marketing buzzword.
Well, a minimum of 25% increase in speed just to be considered hypersonic is indeed a difference, it’s considerable.
I don’t know the range or the warhead of the SIAW, but realistically it wants to be similar to Storm Shadow to be a strike missile worth the expense of developing it to go hypersonic in the first place. That warhead, and that much fuel to do Mach 5+ is easily going to be the same size as Storm Shadow.
That’ll never fit in an F-35 bay, whichever model.
I tend to agree with that generally but one has to also take into consideration the damage a hypersonic missile does even without a warhead at that speed and propulsion technology is progressing well beyond SS in efficiency. But yes the size equation is still relevant here.
That’s very true- high velocity bits of steel are very much damaging on their own! I’m imagining that this weapon will be the top tier replacement for Storm Shadow- hitting the real high value targets (equivalent of the Kerch bridge, various bunkers, etc.), so a sizeable warhead is probably still going to be a pre-requisite. One of the other things we need to consider is just how effective cluster munitions have been, both DPICM artillery and the ATACMs, for Ukraine. We have nothing that comes close, and I feel that’s lacking. Being a signatory on the cluster munitions convention is… Read more »
I know this is not on topic but I couldn’t agree more re: cluster munitions.
It would appear to me to be very cost effective way of starting to address our deficit in artillery capability.
I know it wouldn’t be popular with many, but could we not just pull out of the convention?
I know, they seem to do a good job. I can certainly understand the concerns with them too though- the possibility of injuries to civilians from duds was a genuine risk. In my view, the convention was over-eager; they didn’t see a possibility that reliability of the submunitions could be improved to a point where the risk of duds was low enough, so they just outright banned them. The US was wiser, didn’t sign up to it, but put a strict standard for sub-munition reliability. The older DPICM shells still don’t meet that standard, as far as I know, but… Read more »
Hypersonic is widely agreed to be mach 5+. They don’t reach mach 5 and call it a day. The US army’s LRHW has a published speed of mach 17 and a range of 2775km. Depending on which weapon you’re referring to, the difference between something like the aargm and a modern hypersonic weapon is not even worth comparing.
Thing is the results of the Harm were not very impressive in Serbia in the 90 »s. A French pilote, Ate Shuet, now a YouTuber stated that success rate was 1,65%. Harm Bach then meant that you did get 3 battery shoot down for 200 missiles. If we have nothing else, ok, but… perhaps it would be wise to pursue the development of smothering better.
So you believe a random former pilot on the internet compared to several studies and testimony from Serbian soldiers who openly admitted that they had to turn their radars off out of fear of being targeted by the HARMS?
I don’t know. I think that if Serbian’s were able to avoid being destroyed by Harm missiles by turning on and off air defense, it is wise to assume counter measures progressed, even if the Harm missile is better now. So, I would rather be cautious with this very fast missile, not so big warhead that was not able to fulfill it’s mission properly. Let’s put it this way, I would not over rely on this system and I would prefer to have a backup, just in case. There is this other system, ground based that rely on GPS guidance,… Read more »
“Destruction is a bit better in my opinion than temporary switch off.” I agree with this. You are forgetting one thing however. If a HARM missile forces you to turn your radar off then it has already accomplished it’s mission. Also be aware that the aargm-er is a much more sophisticated weapon that uses a tri-mode seeker which means gps jamming will be almost useless against it. Add to that fact is that it can target radar emissions from over 200km away, it’s near hypersonic speed and it’s totally passive in terms of it’s own emissions means the radar operator will… Read more »
HARM did suppress defences. But the early models weren’t great at killing the defences. ALARM was far more successful. But the latest AARGM and AARGM-ER include a MMW seeker so that even if the radar is shut down it will still get targeted.
Your right. Let say that the 90´s surprise is over and the new version has more sensors which makes it better. But still… I don’t like surprises. Redondant approach is better. For example, in Ukraine, we send the AMX 10RC. This véhicule was good in the desert, but even if we explained how to use them to the armies of Ukraine, it reveals itself as useless in this conflict, because drone replaces the need for armed recon. And we don’t have substitution. Harm is well known, ennemies have had plenty of time to study it and adapt to it. I… Read more »
That was HARM in the 90’s. Back then HARM did not have a vital component which is GPS. In simplistic terms, today’s HARM can remember where the radar was located by referencing the transmitted signal to its current position. It then flies to where it believes the signal was coming from. In Gulf War 2, it worked pretty well.
SPEAR-3 will be the UK’s anti-radiation missile. Though it can loiter if it losses the signal. Plus it can use it radar for basic ground mapping to find the target.
That’s the point, a backup, just in case. It creates more questions to the opponent. The Mistral/stinger use infrared, the Starstreak use optics and other use radar. It is difficult for the foe to adapt to all situations.
Well in part that’s because the Kinzhal is just an updated Soviet one dimensional missile produced mostly as a pr inspired ‘wonder weapon’. New US missiles will be capable of being used on F15s though I agree won’t be exactly compact. However if the US perfects rotary detonation hybrid engines (amongst other innovations) and it looks from tests that they are doing so then size, fuel consumption and range will all be much improved for a given size profile. They seem to be making very good progress with improved rocket motor technology (if their AMRAAM replacement is not exaggerated) and… Read more »
Tempest?
For internal carriage? Maybe. F-35 bays are “limited” partly because it’s a single engine aircraft, so the centre -deepest and longest part-of the fuselage is full of engine. Renders I’ve seen of Tempest show a twin engine design, so possible that a long, deep weapons bay could slot between them.
Lockheed Martin announced the Mako hypersonic missile to be carried by F-35, only a couple of weeks ago.
Yes but it’s LM announcing it so there is a good chance it’s made up and will exist in 20 years if we write a check to LM for $100 billion.
US defence contractors are gaining a similar reputation to the kremlin for inventing magical capabilities that don’t exist but claiming they do. LM were building a fusion reactor that fit on the back of a truck that woukd be ready for world wide distribution in 2015 not see that yet.
I sympathise with that view and there is some truth in it but the Mako does seem to have a modicum of feasibility, it doesn’t seem to be re inventing the wheel. Time will tell no doubt, the problem to me is that I reckon they probably can achieve that (the proposed range didn’t seem excessive) but only fitting the F35A version no doubt.
I don’t know who’s idea it was to have different size weapon bays for the b model but it’s a bit of an issue. The difference isn’t that much but seems to be an issue.
It Maybe a case of get the weapon into service on A then shrink it a bit for the B model.
The B version had to make compromises due to the Lift Fan. In the A and C versions, this area is predominantly a fuel tank. But housed some other parts. Which had to get shifted around for the B version. Hence why the bomb bay is slightly smaller than the other versions.
Anything that long range and large, will have to go under the wings.
Do you have any examples of US weapons with advertised magical capabilities that don’t exist?
Mako is “Ready to fly, ready now and is ready to go in scale and into production quickly” Rick Loy, senior program manager, missiles, Lockheed Martin.
Operational in less than 6 years, starting from scratch? Or is this the revival of the apparently abandoned Perseus concept? Italy have now joined the Anglo French project which still seems to be seeking 2 new missiles – a long range stealthy subsonic replacement for Storm Shadow/ Scalp and a supersonic ASM to replace Exocet and Harpoon( now NSM).
Three new missiles by 2030 seems very ambitious.
Britain was doing hypersonic missile research over 20 years ago. See the UK-Aus HyShot program which evolved into the Aus-US hypersonic program.
Given that ‘hypersonic capabilities’ are one of the eight capabilities to be developed under the so-called Pillar 2 of the AUKUS agreement, it beggars belief that the UK would choose to go it alone when it could conceivably re-join the Aus-US program, Now known as SciFire (Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment) the UK could benefit from15 years of an already established research program which is about to see fruition as a weapons program. Why duplicate?? Perhaps understandable if the AUKUS agreement didn’t allow for technology sharing which it clearly does. The new weapon will be a Mach 5-class precision… Read more »
Woomera
One of the dangers of AUKUS is that we give up UK industrial capability by only buying into US research. Recent reports that we might ditch UK heavy torpedoes because SSN-A will only fire US torpedoes underlines this.
The only way around this trap is to have go-it-alone projects, to let us merge technologies with US and Aus, rather than buying from US manufacturers all the time.
My gut feeling is that US technology sharing between AUKUS partners was/is only just being agreed upon and vital to any serious cooperation. However is it not possible that this hypersonic programmed is actually enabled by such lessening of US restrictions on such sharing. In other words each partner benefits from share research and development but are free to within certain parameters no doubt, to produce their own national weapons/versions of that joint shared research. This announcement might even be the first fruit of that agreement enabling us to produce such a weapon within a timeframe and cost because of… Read more »
Quite possibly, ultimately. Nearer term concentration will be targeted at the production of viable prototype(s). 🤔
Believe you have described the exact rationale and path forward for the UK. Contract description matches a R&D program. The Brits have managed to precisely time this to fully leverage previous Australian/US research, now under the auspices of AUKUS Pillar II. The Lord truly protects “Mad Dogs and Englishmen”…🤔😉😁
Yes and as I comment above waverider was based on UK research and concepts though our designs never left the drawing board… as it was back then.
We can’t get SPEAR developed and deployed in 12 years so the chance of getting these missiles on that time line is zero. This is just an election gimmick.
Spear 3 or the programme – as in Spear 3/4/5? Only last time I looked, S3 will be ready for integration onto F35B when we get Blk 4 upgrades. S4 is currently happening, and S5 is in development.
SPEAR 3 which is being refered to by MBDA as the Spear missile. I think from inception to deployment on f35B we are looking at well over 12 years at best assuming it’s in by 2027.
Yes, wasn’t sure which you were referring to.
It has been a little long in it’s development, as it was initially meant to be ready this year I believe. I think that when it was discovered that LM would be late in delivering BlkIV, MBDA took their foot of the pedal a bit. We subsequently now have time to address any issues there might have been, so its ready when BLK IV comes along. Personally believe it could be ready far sooner than 2027/8, but as it’s currently only going on to our F35Bs, there is no need to rush!
There was plans for typhoon deployment but they seem to have been dropped.
Spear is still to be carried by Typhoon. Germany is very interested in Spear-EW in particular.
“Details on the launch platform for the hypersonic missile remain undecided, with options including deployment from land, fighter jets, or warships”
That line for me is all that one needs to see to understand how much of a gimmick this is. They haven’t decided how it will be launched yet it will be ready by 2030. Clown show.
Yes, it’s just a gimmick for an election year. Grant Shapps probably dreamt this up last week.
The UK doesn’t make ballistic missiles, if it goes on a ship it could only be the Mk41 on T26 which would take years to integrate or in the air typhoon which would take years and be out if service ten years later and the army had nothing that could launch something like this.
It’s complete nonsense.
why not buy off the shelf from the US when they finish theirs, be cheaper, faster in to service, building our own will be very. very expensive.
Depending on how one defines cheaper, it may be cheaper to do it all ourselves. Remember the money invested supports jobs and r&d here, and supports our own industry. If we buy from elsewhere then we are propping up foreign industries/tech development rather than our own. Also we cannot be sure that even our closest allies would share their hypervelocity ordnance technology with us.
Might not be for resale – potentially very sensitive tech. There are some limits on missile technology sharing too, although I don’t know whether this would fall under that.
true, look at the F22, U2/SR71, B1/B2/B52 never sold to any one.
Yes and all arguably expensive gimmicks that failed in their mission with the exclusion of B52
WHAT?, the F22, U2/SR71 failed? the others i agree with.
F22 failed as they built 186 of them at massive cost then the program got scrubbed. SR71 was very very expensive and a handful were built. U2 the original version was a death trap who’s job was largely replaced with satellites soon after deployment. Dragon lady was much more successful however. These aircraft were all technically innovative but the programs were very expensive and largely failed to live up to what the started out to achieve. The F22 was suppose to replace the F15, it didn’t. The SR71 had numerous versions that never got into service and much if not… Read more »
I’m confused the Dragon Lady is effectively a U2 so how can you say that was effective yet the U2 on which it was intrinsically based was not. Equally even today despite all the hype over Satellites it is well accepted that non orbital platforms are vital for gathering intelligence, not only because technically they over most of their lives at least have in many circumstances been able to provide better imagery and intelligence but unless you have thousands of complex spy satellites you can’t necessarily cover the areas that you need too assuming weather and counter measures aren’t a… Read more »
👍Exactly!
Seriously Jim, there is so much rubbish in this post It’s hard to know where to begin. Are you aware that the SR-71 was in service for more than 30 years? Are you aware that the U2 is still in service today? Do you understand why there is a need for ISTAR drones like the rq-180 and why the US keep pumping billions of dollars into other black ISTAR projects? Any advanced adversary can track satellites, even hobbyist are able to track some of the most advanced ones. I’m not even going to get into the fact of satellite coverage… Read more »
“Yes and all arguably expensive gimmicks that failed in their mission with the exclusion of B52″
I think you lose all credibility with comments like this.
I don’t believe so, I’m looking at economics rather than technical “break throughs” Deeper analysis is required to decide if a program is successful as opposed to, wow that goes Mach 3 and cost a gizillion dollars so clearly Kelly Johnson is a genius. If the SR71 was successful it woukd still be flying today but it’s not. The F22 will be dead and buried and the F15 will be in the air decades later. The U2 almost started two world wars getting shit down doing a job that satellites could largely do. It was based on a failed premise… Read more »
I’m not sure if you are being serious in your post because using the standards that you use for the sr71, why isn’t the spitfire still flying today?
If we’re using economics then the typhoon, the t-45, the astutes, the challenger tanks have all been abysmal failures. Honestly by that standard I can’t think of even one major UK weapons project that would be classified as a success.
Really the projects Jim listed are successful is some aspects and failures in others. I don’t think those U.K. projects are failures. Astute set out to replace the SSN with 7 new boats. It’s accomplishing that goal. Whether more should have been built isn’t what makes a successful project. Challenger 3 is the same. Make 150 tanks to replace challenger 2. Now if it doesn’t work or gets stopped at 40 tanks it failed. F22 goal was to replace F15. It failed as it was too costly and over specified. Now had the Cold War not ended then I think… Read more »
“Whether more should have been built isn’t what makes a successful project.”
This is exactly the point I was making. Just to be clear I don’t think any of those platforms are failures. I was pointing out the he was applying a standard that if applied evenly to almost any defence project from any country would make all of them failures. Now if he had mentioned the LCS or the Zumwalt, then he would have a point.
Actually, of all the NATO mbt’s in Ukraine, Challenger 2 is the standout according to Ukraine troops on the ground. Why – sights & gun accuracy. Something to think about. Just because everyone says so doesn’t mean it is so.
Yes, the Cold War plan was to produce 350 F-22’s.
You see I agree and disagree with your various points in equal measure. I could go on for hours about Kelly Johnson a man who was described as ‘seeing air’ because of his apparent instinctive insight into aerodynamic errors with the Model 10 yet seemed to have no such intrinsic insight into those of the P-38 which killed pilots and led to some deeply flawed attempts to remedy the compressibility issues one of which (the raised tail) killed the test pilot. But that is the point in a way, there is no single view, no one basis to judge success… Read more »
Jim seems to be like x(formerly Steve Taylor) from NL and here? Was that name banned from this site several years ago?
UKDJ needs to investigate him.
There is something deceptive about him.
Because there one needs a B52 attached to it to make it work
At the moment yes, the trial version does need a rather large B52 to work.
Which is why we might develop something different?
oh i agree, just we do have a habit of f ing things up, some times at great cost,
I agree, I don’t think we want to be part of this gimmick. I don’t want to be dropping a £1 billion on an R&D program or buying any US missiles at $100 million a go.
So, what is the answer? what makes sense but does not cost us BILLIONS, buy chinse or Russian, theirs works, The US one does not YET?#
Could always trade North Korea some buggers for their leader for one there wonky ones.
It’s an answer to a question we don’t need to answer. Hypersonics are a gimmick.
We should stick with sub sonic cheap long range low observable cruise missiles like FC/ASW.
Why are they a gimmick, ? harder to hit, less time to react.
I’m referring to conventional hypersonic weapons not nuclear ones
they are a gimmick because they cost $100 million each and do a job that can largely be done by $1 million cruise missiles.
They will be so expensive there is almost no target worth hitting with them.
They are dumb weapons with little if any situational awareness or ability to communicate with operators or other weapons and they sacrifice range for speed.
Traveling at hypersonic speed also generates massive amounts of thermal energy which instantly telegraphs a position to any enemy with an IR satellite capability as well.
so why does the UK want them, we will never put a nuke on one. Seem a lot of money for a weapon so expensive we would have very few to use. Too expensive to fire at most targets.
That’s the traditional view of such weapons and why they were never really developed beyond ballistic missiles which hit hypersonic speeds by necessity. However technology has changed and new generation hybrid hypersonic powertrains can offer great range, especially when flying high where the atmosphere is thin. Hypersonic aircraft with long range are about to be flown as text beds let alone missiles after all. Size and more-so cost are still issues but I am not sure insurmountable ones and present research is there to determine these factors and their ultimate usefulness in a conflict as conflict risk surely determines you… Read more »
To anyone who has studied them objectively they aren’t, even if their exact advantages and merits are still up for some debate. To dismiss them is equivalent to dismissing the jet engine in 1940 when the argument for relative power (let alone familiarity) still favoured the new generation piston engines then in development.
Seriously if you have seriously studied the research and development of hypersonics Jim you will see strong evidence that hypersonics are anything but a gimmick for reasons I have mentioned in other posts so won’t do so here. The US postponed its hypersonic development a decade ago simply because it did not see the cost/capability balance it provided was required back then, the same reason it stalled further investment on the award winning best in class Northrop Grumman autonomous drone platform. However that work has been resumed on both for very good reason and rightly so in my mind as… Read more »
US missiles are not cheap.
Support and mods are crazy expensive and you face zero choice as they own the IP & software and we don’t.
true its the spares support where companies make the money
… as the French understand well, we historically less so.
SB I am beginning to just wonder where do we see ourselves going. We have left the EU, but are still excellent European Defence Partners and are still committed to NATO. As it stands Russia is blowing hot from the East and an Orange Mist may be heading from the West. France and U.K are the only other Western Nuclear powers and France has a very long track record of doing its own thing and not breaking the bank doing it. I’d actually sit down with the and talk about the what if scenario of US pulling back from NATO… Read more »
Is it daft?
There will be a god reason for going alone at this stage and stating that level of speed to ISD.
We must have something close to ready that is a lot cheaper than the US alternative that doesn’t need a B52! None of which is impossible?
US is in a totally different position to us, they are 000’s of miles away from any potential enemy and have large Strategic Platforms available. So they can carry heavier and bigger weapons than us and fire at long range, we don’t have those so we need something much smaller. Europe’s present potential platforms are Typhoon & Rafale and will for the next 15/20 years.The F35B would mean spending money getting it integrated by LM and that will be expensive, but would you need stealth for stand off weapons like these ? As for me saying it’s daft, the definition… Read more »
The issue is AUKUS pillar whatever that has hypersonic in it.
There was tech sharing.
US don’t trust the French with intel as they will do what suits them with it including leaking it. The French are not team players are highly self interested in Presidential Electoral Prestige dressed up as ‘for the dignity of France’.
SB if Mr Orange gets in, which would you trust the least ? As for intel the French aren’t in 5 eyes. And all I’m saying is speaking to the French about industrial cooperation isn’t such a bad idea.
As for AUKUS if Trump gets in I would worry about him just ditching it !
Though if he did it could be quite an opportunity.
If TTTB (The Tangerine Tinted Buffon) gets in it may well become JAUKAS……I don’t see FRUKAS as a thing? [sorry having too much fun with acronyms in a very dull meeting] The point I’m making is that some of the tech that UK has, may well have been a synthesis of that shared with and some from US and AUS so we might not be able to share with France even if we wanted to. We got a long way with hypersonics before developing into deployable weapon(s) was shut down. So I’d guess that we have all the pieces in… Read more »
Slight correction – US is geographically closer to Russia, than most of Europe. Bering Strait is only 82km wide at the narrowest part. It’s also much much closer (geographically) to North Korea & China than any country in Europe. US is now switching to the Pacific as its main concern. If you were them, you would be too.
Either way what they would use are Strategic Bombers and long range missiles, don’t forget both potential adversaries aren’t exactly small.
We on the other hand can get away with smaller and with less range.
That’s why I think there may be a bigger story here, after all when the US shut us out if what was our own initiated programme on creating the bomb come post war our own efforts led to renewal of deep nuclear ties some years later. This may well be a similar attempt at hitting similar nerves whoever the target may be if France and/or the US are still being obstructive. If the US does drift away from Europe the European hands on tactical nuclear weapons are for me going to be a necessity otherwise we will be an open… Read more »
IMHO it is high time we had Lancaster House 2.
Both commit to a 5th SSBN and adopt an integrated rotation / maintenance cycle to ensure 3/4 on patrol at any one time.
Which is perfectly doable given the 30 Year lifetime, France using HEU for their SSBN and both wanted 5 in the 1st place.
Also UK acquires an airlaunched Tactical capability to match the “Force de Disuasssion”. Storm Shadow or even ASMP in the short term but a joint missile in the long term.
Look at the Ajax programme if you want too compare waste and time I doubt if we go our own way will the date of 2030 be the completion date or the start date of rectifications for the initial model which hasn’t panned out the way it was intended too do but ??? If you give us X amount of extra funding and time we may have a working prototype by ???
The Ajax programme?
The one built by a US Defence Contractor? General Dynamics…
If we’d gone with the BAE proposal it would have been in service years ago….and so would Warrior with a new turret and CT40 gun…
Their PR dept charmed the MOD and the suckers fell Hook line and sinker for it then they laughed all the way to the Bank
Is this what Radakin meant by “Missile Battalions for the army”??
Depending on the range of these things, visions of GLCM convoys back, this time our own, dispersing around the UK.
Try targeting that, Russia.
I think it is guff. It is far too aggressive, like those pointy, sharp navy swords. And “hypersonic” reeks of Jeremy Clarkson Syndrome, very toxic masculinity type of MoD policy that will be challenged in European Courts 😕
Hang on, Labour are not in yet!
😅
And who said we’d be here in 2030 I was reading the Tea leafs and the future looks empty but then again it’s hard too read a Tea bag
Just look for large groups of them/they/that with the arm pit hair, and hippy clothes, that is how Russia would know where are missiles were by the CND camps.
Haha! I don’t think ( though I was too young to know for sure ) whether the CND lot actually followed GLCM once they left GC or MLW.
So they might know where they’re Barracked but one dispersal, I doubt.
Time frame seems hopelessly optimistic. The could easily end up in another financial fiasco, over budget, years behind schedule and ending up with about 5 finished products.
Unless most of the tech already exists from Reaction Engines and previous UK projects.
I wouldn’t underestimate how much has been quietly whirring away in UK R&D over the five years or so.
In many ways this us very good as a lot of things are properly scoped out and even designed and now need to prototype.
Thought it must be a late April-fool lark at first. Hard to imagine anything going Hypersonic being able to manouvre at all. Hopefully there’ll be some crossover with American research & hopefully we don’t leak too much to the Chinese!
Concerned we need to spend on more mundane stuff to make the UK a more formidable conventional deterrent before chasing the exotic. Could this just be a bit of electioneering spin to dazzle the public to cover up the dereliction of duty running the forces down so far?
Important programme but can HMG please not spend billions and billions of tax payers money on this to then find the unit price is £100 million each and we can only afford to purchase 20 missiles only. If we are going to do this the end product has to be ordered in the hundreds of thousands.
Not sure I what it live in a world where anyone has hundreds of thousands of hypersonic cruise and ballistic missiles.
Was a typing error, I meant hundreds or thousands, not hundreds of thousands, but the principle is the same, development cost has to equal a tangible viable capability with resilience and enough munitions to meet foreseen worse case scenario need (eg war vs Russia, China, Iran)
Jim I thought you claim hypersonics are pointless and a waste of money, in which case surely you would feel safer in such a World where they are preferred to slow stealthy missiles where there would be 1000% more effective missiles.
A hypersonic cruise missile? Quite ambitious, I think most hypersonics being developed are hypersonic glide vehicles.
No that’s not true from what I see the glide vehicles are really the top predators and more skewed towards nuclear warheads, the bulk of new developments are between those and standard cruise missiles but quite wide capabilities and range being proposed and predominantly but not exclusively on nuclear. The glide vehicles tend to be the toughest to crack the lower end like Kinzhal relatively easy but really just faster air launched missiles that slow down as they close on a target so not really much if any more advantageous.
If we go ahead with this it will be good for our defence industry ,has we need to do projects on our own at times.Going with other nations could course delays like we’ve seen in past .So let’s get on with it 🇬🇧
Design and deploy by 2030? Was this meant to be published on April 1st?
I will eat my hat if this happens. Who is doing the fundamental enabling research? Unless very advanced no chance in 6 years. Slow news day?
If one wonders just what has been developed by DSTL, DARPA in the black. Answer, plenty.
So maybe things are further along than first seems.
Hat is ready top be eaten 😉
I’ll join you, as it would be fantastic.
Pretty sure my hat is safe.
With speeds of Mach 5+ this is faster than the Aster 30 and Meteor. Would it also be a possible replacement for these?
Doubt it.
No definitely not, no one is looking at air to air or surface to air hypersonic weapons. They are all surface attack only.
It’s basically impossible to get anything like a radar to work at the front of a hypersonic weapon due to plasma effects. The weapons that do have this likely have to slow down to attack a target which is exactly what you don’t want form and A2A or SAM missile.
That’s very true though that question did make me speculate if a missile that’s extremely fast early on but slowing as it gets nearer to a target to improve tracking and manouversbility at say present Meteor level just might be very useful if the overall range starts to get to 300+ miles. As Air to air missiles of Meteor quality are getting closer to that mark and much improved over previous generations I do wonder if at some stage ram/scramjet missiles with throttle-ability might try such a trick to perfect their potential and lethality at those ranges.
Yes, this was the premise behind Meteor’s design. Where the ramjet can be throttled. The throttling is determined by how far and fast the target is moving. If the target is over x distance and at y speed. The missile will throttle back, so has a longer portion of the cruise phase under power. If it has any fuel left over it can throttle up again. However, if the target is close. The missile can chose to maintain full power and close with the target in the shortest time. There is train of thought, that it may be better to… Read more »
I think more likely land attack or that sort of thing, the Meteor is an excellent compromise very fast but efficient stays powered far longer than most competitors so remains more manoeuvrable in terminal stage. It can get to the point where that ability to target a manoeuvrable target like a SU35 will become negative rather than positive as speed increases. Where that balance is mind is the point mind. Throtalable power trains of the sort Meteor potentially offers does give room for further perfecting however so that perfect combination at range can be obtained.
I’d actually speak to France about their ASN4G programme, they may be awkward sods but they do make things that work and don’t cost a fortune.
After all the most successful, battle proven, non US Air to Surface missile is Storm Shadow / SCALPE. And MBDA is jointly owned and very successful.
I think Sunak made the announcement from Broughton. I feel a deal coming on ….UK chooses H175 for NMH and MBDA shares ASB4G studies with UK: branded as UK sovereign hypersonic for electoral purposes. Son of Storm Shadow.
Gods speed
by 2030, and launch platform still TBD? this is not a very credible press release
Let’s see in 2030 or another costly overrun, 😆 🤣 😂
Great but it will not happen because there is no money and we we will have to get past the civil service scrutiny
Contract for development put out to tender, so it is happening! So money has been found.
after seeing russia’s air defense performance i wonder what the point is? turns out the s-400 is a complete joke. tomahawk, storm shadow, jassm and ATACMs are more than enough lol.
Its certainly encouraging that Russia’s most prized and highly vaulted SAM systems are easily penetrated by distinctly old western attack missiles. TBH I suspected that was the case when Israeli F15/16’s were running rings around them in Syria, so much so that the Russian’s turned their radar systems off for fear of an ALARM type missile closing in on them.
Or was it because of an agreement between them as some have said that as some have also said is why Israel was so reluctant to help out Ukraine. Who knows the true story but the S-400 and later those are not useless the Ukranians are taking great care with planning their attacks to catch them out and we don’t know the exact success rate as yet. Russian incompetence is certainly a factor too and it’s always difficult not to mistake enemy for friendly targets when under pressure and Ukraine often exploits Russian air activity to make attacks so even… Read more »
So they now have a new S-500 system. Nothing energises military development like a war.
Personally I think the money would have been better spent on a wider autonomous vehicle programme including building kit to counter such kit.
You need to build a whole industry – which will need support. New suppliers. Low cost kit needs to be explored etc. With this you are putting all your eggs in one basket?
I suspect autonomy and hypersonics will play an increasingly complimentary role. Also wonder what role quantum gyroscpes and related technology might play in targeting and manoeuvring with ultra fast missiles and the pressure on sensors effectiveness they inevitably have.
You are clearly perfectly correct. New tech is bubbling out of every crevice and the UK needs to be ahead of the game. Early days for Quantum I suspect but the potential is mind blowing.
Designing it is one thing, but where is the industrial capacity to produce such a weapon in useful quantities?
Hypersonic flight in atmosphere generates a plasma layer around the vehicle that impedes telemetry, making guidance difficult and limiting the scenarios for which the missile is useful.
Only if you try to go all the way at Mach 5+. If you are doing Mach 4 when you hit, technically you are supersonic. Result is much the same.
This is not necessarily true and probably only occurs at very high mach numbers. There are well publicized interviews with US military officials on the very topic and they stated that it has no impact on their ability to communicate with the weapon.
If the MoD can afford to put a big enough order in that will allow costs per unit to come down and open up export opportunities then this is probably the right route to go down. But if in the end we order a handful of missiles that cost a fortune then I would instead buy off the shelf (if the US is selling).
Put a bigger motor on a Starstreak…Sorted!
Is this a Reaction Engines thing?
Not sure why you wouldn’t leverage AUKUS to join the HACM program. Why build something to be one of the also runs when you could just pay some $$$$ and be part of the programs with the front runners