The Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the Brimstone 3 missile programme is progressing through its Demonstration and Manufacture phase, with major integration milestones expected in 2025 and 2026, according to a written response published on 30 April 2025.
The missile is set to be integrated onto both the RAF’s Protector RG Mk1 drone and Typhoon fighter aircraft, with a first key firing test expected this summer.
Also, relatively recently, according to the latest Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) report, “the Senior Responsible Owner’s Delivery Confidence Assessment rating at 23/24-Q4 increased from Red to Amber.” This change was endorsed by a formal IPA review in February 2024. The assessment also flagged ongoing challenges with resourcing skilled personnel across delivery teams and industry, but highlighted that officials are considering “opportunities to spiral capability developments to ensure capability is delivered at the earliest opportunity.”
In a written response to a parliamentary question from James Cartlidge MP, Minister for Defence Procurement Maria Eagle confirmed: “Brimstone 3 remains in the Demonstration and Manufacture phase.” She added: “The first safe separation firing from the Typhoon aircraft is expected to occur in summer 2025.”
Eagle also stated: “Brimstone 3 is scheduled to be fielded on Protector in Quarter four 2025 and Typhoon in Quarter four 2026.”
Brimstone 3 forms part of the Brimstone Capability Sustainment Programme, designed to maintain and expand the UK’s precision strike options. It incorporates advanced seeker technology and propulsion improvements, building on previous Brimstone variants, with additional upgrades possible in future, including against air targets.
While challenges remain, the move from Red to Amber indicates that the project is regaining momentum as it prepares for major trials and operational integration.
I wonder how this compares to JAGM.
Iirc the reason JAGM was selected for the new Apaches was range, which seems strange if an extended range Brimstone was planned anyway.
bars 🎶
Apache was as close to MOTS as possible.
Army actually wanted a procurement that delivered serviceable kit and didn’t just spend most of the budget to cancel.
JAGM was selected due to cost. It would have cost hundreds of millions to put Brimestone on Apache for little benefit.
The calculation may be different now given the Orange One.
And from what I remember Brimstone’s major advantage (if one ignores its traditional targeting flexibility over Hellfire) is from fast jets. Certainly was the case being able to be launched at Supersonic speeds.
Just did my research: JAGM was competing with Brimstone 3a anyway.
My bad.
Apache is largely obsolescent- The US has already stated this and is in the process of retiring the D variant. Given the Ukrainian experience, the day of the attack helicopters is done!
How would Apache stand up to a simple threat like a drone with a claymore mine?
The UK Army continues to live in the past spending £ Billions of £’s on gold plated obsolete systems like Ajax & Apache. So, a forward recce A vehicle with no drone or APS protection which won’t reach FOC until the end of the decade (and with numerous faults) & a battlefield helicopter whose manufacturing country admits it’s obsolete! That’s £10,000,000,000 wasted with US suppliers on just two projects.
Mind you if you look at ex senior officers they got some plum jobs with the contractors! Could these facts possibly be connected?
It didn’t work 🙁
Try searching ‘Perun helicopter’ into YT, he has a great video.
drones are a threat and so on that basis no big military kit could operate, and this maybe the case. would imagine if there’s drone threat, allied forces would hopefully using better than good electronic counter measures
🤣
Unfortunately there is general consensus that a particular system is obsolete because it is failing in certain scenarios. The problem is these scenarios are neither static nor worldwide. Ask any anybody & they will tell you that bayonets are obsolete & have been for 75 years. Yet they were used in the Falklands war & are standard issue in most militaries. More than a few didn’t get the obsolete memo.
Not every potential enemy has the ability (where they have it at all), to field all these abilities across the entire battlefield. In the main, they tend to be concentrated in relatively small areas. Anti artillery radar exists. Many militaries have this ability. They just forgot to scale it across thousands of kilometres of front line. Small matter of anti radar missiles just to make it interesting. Translate this to somewhere like the Western Pacific. Tens of thousands of kilometres with ten of thousands of islands with overall populations in the hundreds of millions. Or look at Pakistan & India. Currently on a knife edge. Their land border is over 3,00km. Both have nukes. Both have quite a lot of modern equipment (& even more not so modern). India has a much bigger population & army, though it has an even bigger frontier with not so friendly China (who also has nukes).
The world is not a simple one size fits all place. Even in Ukraine, the whole shoot & scoot artillery idea has come into question. Why – for one the number of anti artillery radars possessed by Russia is constrained & constantly targeted – for two, drones are much more likely to spot movement than a static gun. So is it better to shoot & scoot or shoot & not scoot? The answer is it depends.
Apart from their inherent attributes one of the reasons to continue to deploy attack helicopters is to present the enemy with a range of different threats. With the continuing advances in electronic and other defence systems it seems likely they have a fair life ahead.
Not forgetting that many if not most helicopters never face an actual threat during their service lives.