Britain in £1bn push for hypersonic missile strike capability

As this is effectively a study let’s be honest into potential, practicalities and options and then hopefully collaborations, it seems to me that something of this sort surely should have been set up nearly a decade ago to feed into any project that in reality is going to be predominantly realised through MBDA and will take many years to evaluate usable technologies and research and thereafter formulate into any specific firmed up project. Fine and dandy for the longer term future but probably going to have little input into what needs to get into development asap without extensive delays surely. So long delay it is then. .

The Russians seem to be happy to throw everything including the kitchen sink at Ukraine…I’m sure they could have the same target set, just different routes to destruction of the target.

Air launched is surely the priority, simply gives more flexibility, a sub launched missile will not be practical till the next Gen attack submarines and I suspect that might be part of the AUKUS agreement with a compatible strike missile. Air launched or ship launched we might hope for by the early thirties. Land launched would be part of that no doubt. Bit like CAAM and its and its air launched ASRAAM heritage becoming a sea and land based new missile.

2 years for Sea Ceptor addition?

It is supposed to be super but not hyper.

Two version likely with one being sub sonic with 1000km range and stealth with the other being high super sonic Mach 3+ but with 300km range.

FC/ASW has been revealed as Two different Weapons – a Subsonic Land Attack Cruise Missile replacement and a Supersonic Anti Ship Missile.

Already you need a lot of planning to make Storm shadow truly effective, you ideally need spoof missiles to fool defences and preferably substantial knowledge of air defences so you can avoid them, both of which Ukraine have exploited esp inside knowledge of Russian air defences through partisans and other means. Post 2030 will even an enhanced missile of this type without partisan support be effective other than in the large numbers we are unlikely to have available, or the aircraft to launch them in numbers. One Hypersonic at 3 times the cost might work out cheaper when balanced with potential effectiveness, but that’s all up in the air really and difficult to balance at this stage I guess. I do agree both options are desirable, indeed probably a necessity, hypersonics will be for higher end selective targets for any foreseeable period.

fcasw still seems to be two specific missiles for land attack and anti ship variants some years apart. No further information about their type mind other than non hypersonic. 2034 for the anti ship version mind certainly makes the interim missile solution rather more vital than ever.

Well, the drone business that made much progress and showed enormous promise, was folded into the much laundered Anglo French drone programme that was launched with huge fanfare and shaking of hands.

The aim to create a joint family of drones from a ‘Euro Reaper’ to a very capable UCAV, before the whole thing was promptly and rather abruptly flushed down the toilet!

It’s likely the last such fixed wing programme undertaken by the UK and France, our futures in competing camps.

We seem to have let all drone ambitions go now as we concentrate on GCAP, unless BAE Systems are running a black programme of course.

Chances are we will adopt the production version of Ghost Bat as part of a wider and expanding AUKUS alliance.

Perhaps in turn we can interest Australia in GCAP, as an eventual replacement for the Super Hornet?

Common sense does not figure in many posts here sadly. Mass is more important. Russia has proved that. Don’t forget the MIC love this way of spending taxpayers money. Then coming up with zilch. Time and time again, adapting and using existing tried and tested proves this point. Whoever thought Storm Shadow would be launched from an SU 24?

Considering how good air defence systems are getting I question whether an extremely stealthy missile would be a better option than one that’s just very fast.

Perhaps one that cruises like a cruise missile until its close to being detectable before then using a rocket for a short high speed final burst to limit exposure time to defences.

But Jim, it will need Braid to drive the project… and a matching unCivil Serpent, and combined staff, not forgetting their pensions.

We can do this, but we can’t build or staff enough care home beds, etc?

…rationale.)…🙄

Maybe the reported $100 million per missile price tag put them off, we can’t afford Lockheed prices any more. 😀

I was thinking the same, perhaps they don’t want to be so clear cut and specific so as not to cut off at the knees potential European cooperation in the future. Only logical explanation I can think of, sensible to retain some semblance of keeping options open especially when you major missile producer is pan European, who knows the Perseus concept might be revived at some stage as technology matures.

I’m not clear what the AUKUS programme is actually offering, I suspect it’s some involvement for UK/Aus in American developments and likely in relation to our submarines which makes sense. This may well have a connection to this but I suspect European cooperation may be sought in other hypersonic solutions. Really need UK, France, Germany and Italy to formulate their needs around a single solution or variations around it, for the sake of scale and cost.

If we are fighting an enemy for a year we did it very wrong. We retook the Falklands in 10 weeks, liberated Kuwait in 4 days and took over Iraq in less than a month.

Who we fighting for a year?

If it was Russia in a non nuclear scenario I doubt they would last more than a couple of months.

If it’s China then other that a blockade and a possible scrape in the South China Sea it’s very physically difficult for us to engage with them and they with us unless they start invading Vietnam or South Korea.

A few months of blockade would bring China mass starvation and an end to most industrial processes with insufficient energy.

You’ve forgotten about the vast quantities of equipment we have give to the Ukraine? People said we didn’t have anything to give when that conflict started. How wrong they were.

Yeh I know!! Apparently Russia has launched such supposed missiles at targets in Ukraine, which on at least one occasion have been successfully intercepted by US patriot air defence systems, so much for being ‘ unstoppable’!

Yes Zircon from film provided by the Russians themselves ironically in its launch sequence seems at least to some experts not to exhibit a hypersonic profile, uses flight correcting thrusters deemed unsuitable for a hypersonic flight vehicle and looks almost identical to its Soviet predecessor, so a lot of questions on that particular missile, especially in light of the bull put out by Russia on the Kinzhal’s capabilities until the truth came out.

Well spotted Jim though I didn’t know about the Avangard’s suspected limitations. Yes that reminds me re the Zircon in addition to what I reported above, evaluation of its flights seems to show if it can go hypersonic at all it can do so only in a very limited spurt and has to slow down to be able to identify a target I believe. I note it also failed in its last known attempted test firing which Putin was hoping to intimidate the World with as did the superseded Satan Ballistic missile he so boasts about.

Is he doing AI headers now? I’ve seen some other websites do it and the results look really cool

As far as I know there are not any “non-official” static images of Zircon. There are some images provided to the media. Which may or may not be Zircon. So its hard to give a definitive answer. Russia have also said that Zircon can be used ballistically or with a quasi-ballistic profile along with a traditional cruise missile profile.

From what has been said, the missile is about 8 to 10m long, though I have seen one reporting stating it was 11m long. Which is about the same size as the supersonic P800 Oniks. Similarly it uses a 2-stage propulsion system and that it is hypersonic. Where in “tests” it reached speeds of over Mach 8 (5930mph, 9540kph). Plus it has a range of nearly 1000km.

In 2021 there was an official video release, showing a missile being fired from the Admiral Gorshkov frigate in the White Sea. That then showed a static target being hit, that was supposed to be 350 kilometres away in the Barents Sea. There was video imagery from the bridge, that showed a VLS hatch opening and then a missile blasting out. However, the nose of the missile was heavily pixelated. The video taken away from the ship, showed the missile rise above the ship, where nose mounted reaction jets, pointed the missile to a new direction. Then you see an object fall away, before the missile blasts off in that direction. My presumption is that the missile uses a nose mounted reaction jet module, that get ejected after use. However, there was no close up imagery. So you couldn’t get a decent look at the missile’s nose, only a general overall profile.
It is reported that the missile uses a scramjet (supersonic ramjet) and that it is classed as an anti-ship cruise missile, that can also attack land targets. Physics gets in the way here. A scramjet uses a similar design to a ramjet. The main difference is the intake. Where a ramjet, the airflow must be slowed down to a subsonic speed. Whilst a scramjet is designed for supersonic intake airflow. Maintaining the mixture control and the burn at these speeds is not easy, as you need to protect the flame from being blown out by the supersonic air flow. For a scramjet to work, the missile has to be travelling fast, generally past Mach 4. But to do this it usually must be above 200,000ft. Where the air is thin, but there is still enough oxygen for the engine to operate.

Which means there is a problem. How will the scramjet operate at lower levels, where the air is much denser? So ignoring the issue with thermal friction heating up the airframe. The missile will need some form moveable inlet, that restricts the amount of air entering the engine otherwise too much air will enter the engine and choke it. But the inlet must not create adverse shockwaves that can prevent air actually reaching the engine or disrupting the flame front. Plus the exhaust cone designed to operate efficiently at 200,000ft, won’t work very well at 200ft.

There is a growing consensus that if the missile is flying at low level, then its scramjet will be turned off. Which means it will be gliding to the target. Relying on its lifting body and initial airspeed to keep it aloft to the target. The other though is that it will do a high angle diving attack. Which is the norm for Russian anti-ship weapons. Where it remains at high altitude still under power, detects the target and then dives on to it.

How it detects a target is open to conjecture, as a very high speed hypersonic airframe shape, wont be best suited for optical sensors or radar, due the very shallow nose profile. Which may need to get ejected, to unmask the sensors (as per Stormshadow). Then there’s the minor inconvenience that the missile’s speed has probably created a plasma layer, which forms initially over the nose’s leading edge then travels back the faster you go. The plasma will stop any RF from penetrating the layer. Though you can manipulate it with electro-magnets to create a letterbox that RF can pass through. Pretty certain the missile won’t have the electrical generating capacity for very strong electromagnets! Therefore, it must slow down to dissipate any plasma that has been created.

There have been some recent reports saying Zircon is a Mach 5 to 6 missile, which would be more plausible. At this speed you are towards the top end achievable by a ramjet. Whose intake and combustion chamber is a lot easier to design. It has also been said that Zircon uses liquid fuel for its “scramjet”. A lot of ramjets use a solid propellent such as rubber for a number of reasons, one of which is they require less maintenance to store. Whereas depending on the liquid chemistry, this may need replacing after 3 to 5 years, as it starts to breakdown into other factions especially if its kerosene based.

I do believe Zircon is a real missile and do think its speed is hypersonic, but low hypersonic, i.e. Mach 5 to 6. Even at these speeds it has to content with atmospheric heating of over 1000C. If it is to fly at lower altitudes. Range is also proportional to speed and therefore the burn rate. So at top speed, it is likely only a few hundred miles at best. The missile isn’t big enough to store more fuel to increase its range. Plus if it does use a scramjet, then it must fly above Mach 4 to operate efficiently, but at very high altitudes. Otherwise you might as well use a ramjet!

Hope you are correct, I too find it difficult to understand the critics who don’t seem to even read the basic details. This isn’t wasting money on an actual weapon (achievable or otherwise) but a set up to create collaboration to precisely proscribe what is possible or desirable and assess and support research and collaborations into technologies that will ease the way into as and when it might be feasible and developing such weapons. If you simply decide it’s not possible now or worthwhile you simply cut yourself off from ever being involved in technology that makes it all possible. That truly is short sightedness which has held this Country back when for instance That her claimed Airbus will never compete with Boeing, it was pointless having a Space Industry or earlier still abandoning Black Arrow and the capability when we successfully launched our own satellite (the only Country to do so once achieved) two of the three we are desperately trying to correct and the other we pretty much got out of having any political influence in and yet have to invest to keep the facilities here.

I think ARIA is the Uk’s DARPA.

Anti ship missile variant now worryingly estimated for 2034.

Exactly. Buy a decent number of the supersonic fcasw. Job done.
Concorde was pegged at M2 so they wouldn’t need exotic materials. If M3 is available without exotic materials/price its a no brainer surely?
Let the Americans spend the money to take out very high value targets with very high value ordinance. As has been said. Quantity has a quality of its own and as the supersonic fcsaw(woteva) is likely to be much cheaper than a hypersonic, just pack them mk41s with them .
How much better is a hypersonic going to be for the price? AA