The UK Government will procure up to 7,000 domestically built long-range weapons as part of a sweeping new initiative to strengthen Britainâs warfighting capabilities, according to details from the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review (SDR).
This unprecedented investment is set to support around 800 jobs and marks one of the largest boosts to the nationâs long-range strike capacity in decades.
The procurement forms a central pillar of the SDRâs focus on readiness and deterrence amid growing global instability. Backed by a new ÂŁ1.5 billion investment in munitions and energetics factories, the initiative will also see the construction of at least six new production facilities across the UK. Together, these efforts will support nearly 2,000 jobs and reinforce the governmentâs Plan for Change by embedding economic growth in the defence sector.
According to the Ministry of Defence, the long-range weapons will be UK-built and tailored to meet the demands of modern high-intensity warfare. The commitment recognises lessons learned from the war in Ukraine, where long-range fires have played a critical role in shaping battlefield outcomes.
The SDR calls for an âalways-onâ production model to ensure the UK can rapidly scale up munitions output if required. This includes laying the industrial foundations for sustained stockpile growthâessential for the Armed Forces to maintain endurance in prolonged campaigns.
Defence Secretary John Healey MP stated:
âWith threats increasing, the SDR is clear on the need to move to warfighting readiness to boost deterrence and to grow our defence industry across the country. Scotland will be a linchpin in making Britain safer, with more generations of skilled Scottish workers benefiting from apprenticeships, jobs and rewarding careers in defence.â
Scottish Secretary Ian Murray MP echoed the sentiment, speaking on Scotlandâs role in the UK’s defence ecosystem:
âScottish defence businesses â with their skills, expertise and innovation â have a huge opportunity to benefit from this new investment, with the sector here already receiving ÂŁ2.14 billion in government spending last year, supporting approximately 25,600 jobs.â
Scotland already plays a key role in defence manufacturing, with BAE Systems producing 155mm artillery shells in Glasgow and Raytheon building Tomahawk missile components in Glenrothes.
The new investment is part of a broader effort to raise the UK’s defence spending to 2.5% of GDP and halt what the SDR describes as the âhollowing outâ of the Armed Forces. Munitions spending alone will rise to ÂŁ6 billion over this Parliament, supporting not only national security but industrial capacity.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves MP added:
âA strong economy needs a strong national defence, and investing in weaponry and munitions and backing nearly 2,000 jobs across Britain in doing so is proof the two go hand-in-hand. We are delivering both security for working people in an uncertain world and good jobs, putting more money in peopleâs pockets as part of our Plan for Change.â
The SDR outlines a ten-year transformation of the UKâs defence posture, aiming to re-establish industrial resilience, military credibility, and NATO readiness. With 7,000 long-range weapons on order, this new era signals a decisive shift toward enhanced national deterrence and enduring combat power.
Very good. Edging the possible failure of next combat aircraft projects. Combat Aircrafts risk being a niche like the tank instead of dominant asset.
I don’t think they will become niche. They said that in the 50s, that missiles would replace combat aircraft, and it never happened.
Air superiority will still be key to winning wars, and for that you need combat aircraft – be they manned or unmanned.
There’s nothing in the article to suggest what types of missiles these will be; I’d assume a mix of types. Are these the planned 2,000-km range missiles, or are these going to be increased stocks of current missile types e.g. Storm Shadow, planned SPEAR 3 etc? In which case we most certainly do need to ensure we have the combat aircraft to deliver them.
Deja vu; whatever happened to Blue Steel?
One of Zoolander’s best looks!
Not a jot on Magnum, though!
Whatâs the range of the freefall bombs it seems the Ministry want for possible F-35A strike aircraft? Blue Steel was cancelled because its initial limited range (early marks from as little as 100 moving up to 400miles) wasnât deemed sufficient to avoid air defences. However 1000 mile later marks were envisaged impressive for the time. Skybolt mind had potential capabilities ironically that seem in many ways beyond the proposed hypersonic weapons planned these days though obviously modern designs will be much more sophisticated obviously but even Blue Steel was supposed to have accuracy within 90metres or so. Ironic that the B-52 will be getting missiles not dissimilar in brute performance offered by Skybolt increasingly deemed a somewhat obsolete concept back then. 11000 miles at Mach 12 seems beyond impressive (if achievable) perhaps air defence systems back then were somewhat overrated if we now see admittedly sophisticated aircraft with freefall bombs useful now. Anyway in the end we just couldnât afford to develop Blue Steel to where it needed to be ie Mach 3 and 1000 mile range but Skybolt seems to be more capable on paper than most of Russiaâs hypersonic air launched missiles today though in reality they are just updated Soviet designs. Interesting talking point mind. But more generally good I think that the Govt is realising a more nuanced approach to a nuclear deterrent is required. Putin will exploit that weakness if we and others donât which makes in my view WW3 more likely in the end.
Yes, I think we will see that âmore nuancedâ approach to nuclear and conventional deterrence. The Blue Steel reference was a bit tongue in cheek. Skybolt was cancelled – not a good omen for depending on the US. In the short term, looking at Taurus Iâm sure we could easily double the range of Storm Shadow and consider F-35 and B61; how easy would it be to make a glide bomb version of B61 or fit a nuclear warhead to SS? Talk of 7000 long range 2000km land strike missiles; project Brakestop. And the French are updating ASMP. Lots going on.
” They said that in the 50s, that missiles would replace combat aircraft, and it never happened.”
Is that an argument?
That is like saying that horse cavalry would never be replaced by the tank.
Cumulative technological advances can a turn a system from marginal to dominant. You could not have a sea dominant aircraft carrier with WW1 airplanes. But by WW2 you could.
Now you can argue that we are not there yet…or never will.
But i am seeing combat aircraft beeing too complex, expensive and taking decades to be operational.
The difference is that missiles alone cannot establish air superiority. A missile cannot be recalled if a mission needs to be aborted. There a lots of things a missile can’t do that combat aircraft can.
I can guarantee that in 50 years time the missile still won’t have replaced the combat aircraft.
Now, I fully agree that MANNED combat aircraft will lose their dominant presence on the battlefield, replaced largely with drones, with human-flown aircraft more controlling and coordinating drones rather than engaging targets themselves. But missiles alone can’t do what aircraft can.
If the enemy with missiles can destroy/damage significantly most your energy production, all your airbases. all your ports what what matters the air superiority?
Only if that air superiority can destroy those missiles befoer launching.
One day’s worth then. You will note the ‘up to’ as well. So they might buy one! đ¤Ł
One day more than we currently have ;-p
These plans for a scalable, always-on munitions production capacity are a big step forward on the last two decades of muddle and make-do.
I agree understand some cynicism but this is a big change and the public needs to be eased into this new reality whatever is happening behind the words, hopefully serious action behind the words.
7000 is good, but how are they going to be launched? I hope they are not all air launched, as we will only be able to fire about 50 a day…..
We need a few modern Vulcans, able to pack a dozen or so missiles at one time. Order more P8 and have two on each wing….etc etc.
How about more ,T31 with increased Mk41 capacity to remain in home waters?
AA
It sure is a hell of a large quantity and yes to fire from what? Lots of trucks, mk41s, air launch platforms, all to be pulled out of a hat? And, any to be sub launched? Anyway it’s a huge commitment so a well done for that. Time for some of the same for GBAD.
Well the argument coming out of the Ministry is that itâs not sensible to have only one delivery method/option and even though this comment from Healey seemed to be nuclear orientated, I would suspect the thinking is deemed equally relevant more generally probably more so infact as lessons from Ukraine seem to be rightly flavoured of the day. So I would expect a range of delivery systems or platforms would be preferred. And surely even if aircraft are beginning to be questioned somewhat in terms of survivability in terms of long range weapons what more flexible platform is there for varying attack vectors and utilising launch options to exploit weaknesses. Problem is surely what sort of aerial platform, size, manned or unmanned, stealth etc. looks to me the âbomberâ is making a comeback because to get the range of these long range missiles they are still going to be quite large. Fighter bombers like Tempest have to be large too to carry one or two of the longer of these long range weapons so itâs all becoming a jigsaw juggling various capabilities and requirements. It will be interesting to see where this takes the Franco/German 6th Gen effort where carrier operation has to be thrown in as a limiting factor.
What’s the right option now may change in a decade or two, deemed obsolete concepts may come back into favour with new twists, so options do need to be as broad based as possible as far as finances allow.
Consider the Storm Shadow, at just over 5m long, it has a range of 550km whilst travelling at Mach 0.9. Now consider Tomahawk (TLAM), which is slightly longer at 5.5m, which has a range of 1300 to 2500km depending on the version, but travelling at Mach 0.7. How does TLAM go further? Well for starters it is travelling slower, so burning less fuel, but it is also powered by a turbofan compared to Storm Shadow’s turbojet. Which burns its fuel more efficiently for the required power. Allegedly FCASW (TP15) is going to travel further than Storm Shadow, but will it be any bigger? I’m not so sure as any bigger places a limitation on the number an aircraft could carry, as the weight increases. Clearly the other way to increase the range is to use a turbofan, as they are more efficient. I have a feeling it will directly compete with the LRASM, which at 4.26m is shorter than Storm Shadow, but is powered by a turbofan, which gives it a range of around 900km. Where Lockheed Martin say it travels at a high subsonic speed, which is likely faster than TLAM.
There is also the Franco/German/Belgium/Spanish SCAF aircraft. It will also be armed with FCASW (TP15). But if the aircraft is expected to operate from a carrier. Then the weapon’s size and weight will be a major factor. Not forgetting the other side of the coin, the RJ-10 version of FCASW. Which being supersonic is likely going to be powered by a ramjet. But so far there has not been any range/speed information released. Which again would put constraints on its size and weight.
We sort of “know” that GCAP is going to be large. If the MOD have stated that they’d like the aircraft to be able to do either no mid-air refuelling to reach the US, or as little as possible. Then the aircraft will not only need an efficient aerodynamic design and fuel efficient engines. But also be able to carry lots of fuel. That amount of fuel takes up a large volume, so the aircraft will need to suitably sized to carry it, did somebody say F111 size! However, a large aircraft does have the benefit of allowing a large weapons bay. But will it be large enough to hold a pair of FCASW (TP15s)? Which if they’re keeping a similar size to Storm Shadow at just over 5m long, then the bay needs to be longer and deep enough to accommodate it/them. Keeping the weapons in the bay does mean the aircraft remain stealthier and more aerodynamic. Which should allow the aircraft to use less fuel to approach its target and get much closer before its detected.
Survivability is a good question. How survivable in today’s air environment is a 4th generation jet? What will the chances of survivability be for this jet in 10 years time? If we are talking about Typhoon, it sadly will be detected by a peer radar, but it my still be able to operate outside of surface to air missile range or an enemy fighters air patrol, long enough to launch FCASW. GCAP and F35 with their stealthier designs can operate a lot closer, thereby enabling the weapon to reach further. Again if GCAP can house the weapons in the bay, then it should be able to get closer still. Stealth and how it responds to radar is now pretty mature. We have a good understanding of the threshold before a radar absorbent material gets overloaded and starts to reflect the energy back towards the radar. So the pilot via certain sensors, will be able to determine how much energy is lighting up the aircraft and where the limit is. Which gives them options of proceeding closer to the target or releasing the weapon at that point.
Smart industrial policy, finally. But what specifically do they mean by ‘long-range weapons’?
FCASW? This new UK/German missile? LRSM we might buy? ERGMLRS? PS missile for MLRS?
It is all good stuff anyway, if linked to the new AI/targeting web.
Long range weapons? I don’t see missiles mentioned. Could be drones or even shells for all it says..? BUT just a day to wait hopefully. Handy that this news “leaked” just before the Hamilton by election though.
BBC article mentions missiles and drones. But really the scope could be broader.
BBC and defence? As you say could be anything
Lol. Even in Scotland Nigel is making inroads.
As you say some of the jet powered shell concepts recently successfully tested (as opposed to rocket assisted) look very interesting, offering seriously extended range guidance and overall capability. Going to be quite a lot of new concepts, some unexpected no doubt coming into the equation I suspect so we need to be nimble.
Good news (better years late than never!). Lot of questions over delivery method, type, range etc but I expect that will come in due course. I suspect it will be a decade or so before we see new missiles coming off the new assembly lines.
If the politicians are now starting to realise the industrial base is so important then perhaps they could look into opening some state owned mines for the raw materials needed for industry, such as iron ore. I know it will be more expensive than importing but the supply chain should be considered a national security issue.
What kind of missiles ?
Couple of thoughts here. Firstly, recent Scottish refusal to allow a grant being given because they have a ban on the manufacture of ‘munitions’ in Scotland (?) and also a current report thatthe UK may be about to buy some F35s to carry American free-fall nuclear bombs.
First point, what’s going on in Scotland /SNP? These missiles are probably going to be classed as munitions, so any building or similar grant application is likely to hit the same barrier. Perhaps Scotland would not be a good place to build a new factory.
Second point why not make British free fall nukes or possibly ones that can be put on this long range missile? We should not be depending on America for something we can do ourselves, and I would have thought a free fall bomb would be a poorer option than one attached to a missile.
Not keen on tactical nukes, more likely to lead to all out nuclear exchange. We have gold plated second strike which Putin is aware of. If we pay for this less money for other things.
Neither am I, but they have a headline quality that has a deterrence factor in their own right. Not all defence is about actual defence value; in the case of tactical nukes it’s a visible deterrence that says ‘don’t do that’ in an emotive way. I totally agree with you that there are non-nuclear options available in a military sense – but it isn’t always the purely military option that carries the day.
Why is everyone focusing on these âLong Range Weaponsâ being air launched and Air to surface, it doesnât specify anything ? Old saying âTo Assume van make an Ass of U and Meâ.
It could be extra Meteor, FCSASW, Tomahawk block IV, Heavyweight ASW Torpedoes, Aster 30, Trident D5LE (5th SSBN ?), extended range 155mm shells, new missiles for MLRS etc etc. In other words just putting place a proper war stock of what we have already of in the pipeline that would soon add up to 7000.
And then again it could also cover the real Elephant in the UKs Defence portfolio we have zero long range Missile defences for the UK or its Forces đ¤ TBH if that isnât addressed in this SDR then someone needs to hand the Politicians a very short range hand held device with an unguided 9mm projectile in it and suggest what they do with it.
So yes Long Range Weapons has to include something like SAMP-T with a war stock of Aster 30 Block 1 or 1 NT for them and the T45 etc, or we suck up to Trump and buy US.
Hi ABC the original press release is clear itâs long range missiles and drones.
It was also interesting in that it was âBritish weaponsâ
Ahhh, really?
Ok, so FCASW, the UK/German missile, and the majority being a long range strike drone I read that we were quietly working on.
âBritish madeâ weapons to be precise. At least two US Companies have offered to build weapons here (the LM Mako for one qualifies as a long range missile) and I presume non US companies or MBDA might build non UK origin weapons here or large parts there of, I didnât realise Raytheon built parts of missile and other platforms here and indeed in Scotland till recently.
Good point on the British made.. to be honest I have no issue with that.. making other peoples stuff in your country is what a lot of nations have done to upgrade their economy and industrial capacity.. itâs why China now makes good US brands like Apple devices and Tesla cars.
As long as itâs well balanced and we get the stuff we need while supporting investment in innovation as well as industrial capacity.. itâs like having a Spanish ship builder re-invigorate Belfast..
I think Healey mentioned the shortage of missile defence so I think some expansion here is likely to be in the announcement. And yes this could come under âlonger range missilesâ I guess if itâs to be effective.
As seen in Ukraine – what is the build plan to produce millions of cheap one way attack drones, recon drones etc?
“British-Built” ….mmmmmm… I have a nasty feeling they won’t be British Sovereign design/IP held.
If air-launched, why not just adapt an old airliner to be a “warehouse” bomber. i.e. Convert a load of 747s and ram full of long-range standoff missiles? Sit out above the Arctic Circle and blast away as needed. Use similar in an air-defence role to combat swarms of aircraft.
That would have been laughed at 5 to 10 years ago. I find it tough to contemplate now at first sight but the way things are going and the increasing importance of the old stalwart B-52 in such a role maybe itâs not so unfathomable idea. Depends on the range of the weapons I guess as to its practicality but one presumes if a civilian class airframe could realistically be adapted to such a capability and the cost in doing so. Itâs the sort of thing that could be effective for a while then as defences adapt could become almost useless soon after, the fears for tankers show how that has changed quite quickly in recent years when a decade ago it was barely seen as a threat.
Well we know that Isreal especially is developing a lot of concepts around dumping long range munitions off the back of transport aircraft.
It would really not be a stretch to turn a A400m or a C17 into a strategic bomber.. after all if the are carting weapons with 1000km range they donât need to penetrate air defence systems and modern weapons carry all the targeting systems organically so the modern strategic bomber is really just a strategic transport for long range drones and missiles.
…yeah and it is me they are always laughing at as I post these concepts on this board over the years. Gradually I get proven to right as world events unfold…
The B52 is already used as a stand-off missile carrier, this is its primary mission. Overflight saturation bombing is only undertaken in a very permissive environment, i.e. no medium range SAMs etc that can reach its operating altitude.
However, one bomber the USAF are considering to use as a air dominance force multiplier, is the B21. The thoughts are it will act as a “missile carrier” for scouting F22, F35 and F47s. Where the B21 will be carrying extra long range weapons like the AIM-260. This is something the B52 could not do, as its radar signature is massive. Whereas the B21 can due its tiny signature.
I already said to employ A400 for that.
For me the take homes were this
It was announced in an active storm shadow production line⌠there has been a lot of are they arnt they around if they had re activated storm shadow..
7000 munitions target are for it seems long range missiles and drones ( no definition of long range per say so who knows).
These will be British weapons⌠so thatâs an order of up to 7000 long range British weapons
6 munitions factories that will be designed to ramp up in war.
If you link all this with the 2000km+ missile and other long range Weapons programs the UK is changing its defence paradigm very significantly.. itâs moving to a long war paradigm.. essentially taking a page from China⌠you win not just by defending or overwhelming in key battles but by constantly hurting your enemies at home.. that is the only way to end a warâŚ
That is the real learning from Ukraine.. Russia keeps losing men on the front but because at home money is flowing into bank accounts and no one sees the war it can just keep fighting on and on. I think this is what this is about.. itâs the British government going if you fight a war with us we will hit you at home and we can keep producing the weapons to hit you at home.
I agree and hearing that Russia is producing around 1500 tanks a year and life expendable to win in a war without invading (a clear no go) serious long range strike in great numbers will be vital and only missile and drones, however they are launched really offer that capability to hurt where it matters and force them to the table. Even then itâs going to be tough. The US needs to understand the potential long term consequences here, because it might be long term but if Europe is eliminated as a threat one way or another, you can bet Russia will be looking towards regaining Alaska and with Chinese support covering its flanks with air and navy forces, in a couple of decades I wouldnât be confident that the US could resist without a nuclear response and thus mutual elimination. They need to stop being short sighted yes get Europe to get serious about defence but realise how vital it is to them too. The Margery Taylor Greene approach which many support, will lead to their collapse down the line even if itâs in a generation. This is Chess not drafts the opposition is playing⌠well at least China and Russia is happy to play along as the brute force blunt reality.
Itâs really interesting Ukraine has just been âallowedâ by the west to take the strategic governors off its long range weapons and today itâs just done a brutal number in Russias strategic forces.. Ukraine has always been hampered because the west would not really allow it to go strategic with what it supplied so it was always stuck reacting tactically and thatâs how you loss wars⌠itâs just changed up.. letâs see how that changes the peace negotiations.