A British company founded in February has announced its first missile and the factory it intends to build it in, aiming at a replenishment cycle of under a year against the three years it currently takes to replace a stockpile, its founder told the UK Defence Journal at Apex Europe in London.

Henry Price spent fifteen years at primes and tier one suppliers before setting up Cody Aerospace and Defence, and the frustration that came out of it is what he says drove him to start the company.

He told me: “Fifteen years working for the bigger companies, producing amazing capability, but the cost and the lead time, and having to apologise to end users for those issues running some of the programmes, is kind of the frustration that drove me to say, okay, let’s go and do this ourselves, and we can prove that capability and offer something to the end users that they really need, in the timescales they need, at the right cost.”

The number he keeps returning to is the one that defines the market he is entering. “If you look at the problem statement of seven to ten days of stockpiles on the shelf for the UK in intensive warfare, and three years to replace it, that’s all we need to solve,” he said.

“We today released Badger, which is our ground-to-ground strike missile, in a containerised launcher, so an ISO container converted for that use,” he said. “And then a couple of years after that, being realistic, we’re also looking to integrate an interceptor missile into that same strike package. So from a commander’s perspective, you’ve got both strike and intercept capability in the same platform, which I think is quite a unique proposition.”

Radar and fire control come with the package, and his pitch is that the customer gets a complete capability instead of a product they then have to integrate themselves.

The factory was announced on the same day as the missile and the launcher. “All underpinned by our factory, which is called Ordnance One, which we’re also announcing today, and that’s going to be the key in terms of the industrialisation that we need to do for the product,” he said. The plant is intended to build Cody’s own designs and to produce other companies’ and other countries’ equipment under licence.

Badger is in the design phase and the company is raising pre-seed capital. “We’re looking to raise capital to bring that to a development maturity within eighteen months, two years, including the testing,” he said, with key components taken off the shelf from existing suppliers of seekers, rocket motors and guidance to reach a high technology readiness level quickly.

Those timings add up to his argument against buying off the shelf from the United States. “If you added that into what’s the replenishment cycle look like, we’re targeting under a year. I’d love to say six months, but say a year. So if you do the two years plus the year of replenishment, you’re actually under three years, if you go and buy off the shelf from the US or all those countries today,” he said.

American orders also carry a complication British buyers have run into before, “The other piece with the contracts from the US side is they’ve got DPAS ratings in terms of who gets the priority, and it’s generally given to the US customer first, as you’d understand,” he said. “So that three years could become four or five quite quickly, as we’ve seen with what’s going on in the world today.”

Sovereignty is the third strand of the business, and he was careful not to overclaim on it. Partnerships are being put in place with British suppliers for energetics and the rocket motor, though he was clear that rare earths and composites run into supply chains nobody in Europe fully controls.

He said: “I’m cognisant of just coming out of a UK factory isn’t necessarily all sovereign, but it’s better than we’ve got today. If it was all purely UK, there’ll be three, four times the cost. That’s what we’ve been told by the supply base, and it’s a reality today.”

Obsolescence management is where he thinks the real time is lost, and he gave an example from his own career. “It’s a seven dollar chip, very small, and the replacement is ten dollars, and that is the difference between two and a half years or six months. So the qualification is the key piece,” he said. Cody intends to fire Badger with old and new components in it to prove changes quickly and hold the design authority itself.

He put the same point more plainly a moment later, and it is the line his engineers will recognise. “I want engineers to be delivering capability, not managing obsolescence,” he said.

His read of the customer base starts from how thin the stocks are. Most NATO members have a multiple launch rocket system capability and can therefore tick the box, with inventories somewhere between twenty and eighty depending on the country, and the rule of thirds puts one third in maintenance, one third in training and one third on the front line. From there he moved to a challenge aimed at the alliance as a whole, he says.

“Why do we not have a standardised effector? If you take Ukraine as an example, you’ve got three different systems from three different countries with similar sized munitions. They can’t fire each other’s product,” he said, arguing that a commander on the front line should have the flexibility to fire a similar-sized munition from whatever launcher is to hand, in the way that artillery shells and small arms ammunition already allow.

Cody’s software and fire control will be open source, he said, whether or not the company ends up shooting anybody else’s rounds.

His message to the Ministry of Defence was also pretty clear, he said “We’re not saying as industry we want more budget, which might be a strange thing for me to say,” he said. “We want to spend the money in a better way. The Defence Investment Plan was explicit. There was eleven point one billion pounds earmarked for stockpiles. My challenge to MOD is we can help you spend that money better. Let’s start with one product named Badger with the containerised launcher. Let’s go to the interceptor. Let’s go into the air-to-air domain. Why is it two million pounds every time you fire an air-to-air missile? They’re very capable, but you’ve got to wait three years to get another one.”

Torpedoes are on his list too.

Asked where the company should be by Apex Europe in 2030, he was modest about it. “I’m probably being conservative and maybe British in my approach to growth. A lot of companies out there will show thirty products. I’ve come from this world, I know the pain it takes to do the integration and the development, so I’m saying let’s start with a handful,” he said.

Longer ranges would follow, and products built for snow, sand and water instead of designed around one war. Other ideas he is turning over include airdropping the Abode launcher and moving it on uncrewed vehicles, since shoot and scoot is how artillery survives and taking the crew out of that lowers the risk case.

He finished on where he thinks all of this work should be happening, telling me “My frustration is we keep sending it to other parts of the world. Let’s do it in the UK. Let’s use the testing houses that we know are here. We’ve got the catapults. We’ve got the universities. We have everything in the UK,” he said.

“If the government wants to talk about growth and the agenda of defence, let’s back companies like Cody, and we can actually make that difference.”

George Allison
George Allison is the founder and editor of the UK Defence Journal. He holds a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and specialises in naval and cyber security topics. George has appeared on national radio and television to provide commentary on defence and security issues. Twitter: @geoallison

24 COMMENTS

  1. Very good luck to him. I hope that this a British Anduril in the making. I hope that it doesn’t get smothered by bureaucracy, risk-aversion or ideology from Labour.

    Hope this game, sett and match.

    • The defence review was very much about helping SMEs into a market previously dominated by a big few. More the issue is ensuring these new joiners develop and grow, unlike Aeralis.

  2. 5m long, 160km range, Mach 3 and 100kg payload.
    Wonder what their Swift interceptor will look like.

    Fire point have taken one of the S300 missile variants to make the FP7 and a BM version .
    I think the UK has joined the Freyja project based on the Ukraine system for a cheaper interceptor with SRBM capability.

    Presumably Badger could be adapted as a similar solution? But it’s now competing with lots of other systems.

    The Govt needs to commit some money into these startups asap.

  3. Can someone explain to me why so few platforms are capable of firing other muntions. Why cant we stick rocket motor / boost stages onto air launched missiles so they can be launched from ships or land based launchers. Are all the radars so siloed that they cant talk to new missile types?
    As a complete novice to this stuff it sounds like Aegis / MK41 VLS is the only set up with its act together in being able to use a range of munitions.
    For example, if older air to air missiles could be boost staged from a Patriot launcher, could Ukraine shoot down lower grade threats with older western missiles and ration PAC 3s better. Or am I missing something obvious?

    • Short answer: You need an interstage that mechanically joins together the two motors and provides an electrical interface to ignite the first stage. At the same time, you need to make sure the whole new stack is aerodynamically and structurally sound in flight.

      • Ok. What about firing missiles other than PAC 2 and PAC 3 from Patriot launchers with a boost stage. If the sizing is off, cant someone build an insert to downsize the barrel to fit other missiles? Surely the West hasn’t lost its ability to be creative in this regard. Why cant we give Ukraine reaper style drones with sidewinders to shoot down the Gerans? Is the airspace over Kyiv at risk from Russian jets shooting them down? Surely we can come up with something to use all the older stuff lying around.

  4. This is classic Britain through the ages. Trouble is coming and people like this guy know it and are trying to do something about it. Meanwhile the Bearucracy drags its heels until it’s very nearly too late. Just in time, as if by magic they realise and or get replaced and the real people come to the rescue. I just hope we are not cutting it too fine this time.

    • Spot on, so much talent in this Country that is and has been historically ignored, even ridiculed until circumstances prove them right, usually at the last minute. Frightening how circular it has become over the ages. Many examples exist, but I suspect the most famous and pertinent has to be Whittle, the guy near ended up in a mental institution due to the stress he was put under as he fought with Griffith and the establishment over validating his work and then had RR backed by the Govt effectively screw him out of his patents as their importance was finally recognise. Just so British, just give them a gong to shut them up. I think we see in the present situation how higher end defence production is, with nit a little ironic attached produced for peaceful times, aimed at keeping the bigger companies in situ producing just enough kit to maintain that (though often not even that) but as others have said little concern for flexibility and interoperability that would be vital in an actual conflict working with other systems. The priority being to maintain individual company IP and profitability and little thought for maintaining or future proofing stocks of those often gold plated weapons and sometimes no production line remaining to build more combined with no actual replacement in sight. The idea seems to be about deterrence with no plan B should that actually fail.

      Ukraine has frighteningly broken the mould on those naive institutionalised beliefs, even if the UK Govt (and voter base) is still working hard to ignore it. And ‘good enough’ has never been shown to be more vital to the equation to solve this problem as thankfully these new companies are demonstrating. I think this guy has absolutely and fortunately understood the real problem that corporate thinking has ignored for the sake of its own profits and shareholder support over real wider national needs, because it too presumed it wasn’t really designing its kit for actual real scale war just the odd minor conflict at most which has the bonus that no doubt they think the supreme capability of its expensive product can be demonstrated to sell to make more profit, fighting a war isn’t really a serious consideration. Eyes are being opened yes, but far from fast enough. These new start up companies are supplying answers not so much the established ones.

  5. I fear that all this optimism from innovative SMEs is reliant on a government that has no intention of doing anything beyond kicking the funding can down the road.

    • This current lot are a dead weight on UK. In a fast moving world with some extremely dangerous countries close by that’s not what you need to survive. Made worse by the anchor country an old friend going rogue, things haven’t looked worse for many many years. Hopefully we could circumvent the present idiots and using AI set up some virtual alternative; somehow.

  6. Two things:

    1. It will fail because the UK government orders from a foreign rival instead of supporting UK industry.

    2. If it’s successful it will be snapped up by a foreign rival because UK government doesn’t block takeovers and ban all takeovers of UK defence and tech companies. There’s no economic benefit to letting these companies be taken over and only a massive loss to the economy and treasury.

    • is a uk gov order enough, if a good product it should get overseas orders or partner up with overseas firms? europe looking for home produced and not buy american, there is opportunity.

      • Agree with both of you tbh. We are just constantly losing hi tech companies to foreign predators and this needs to be addressed as there more generally are never going to grow our economy where it matters and in the only real growth sectors when our start ups and even established businesses just become absorbed into foreign mostly American economies leaving the British businesses if they remain as ever declining mere feeder outposts. But equally to flourish these new start ups need to gain export business and cooperations without losing their independence, their German equivalents seems to be doing well in that regard and we need to match it. Trouble is the City will still be far more about a quick profit and returns with no real consideration for even national survival instincts. This is why so many of our start ups once they hit the point where their projects show real promise re-establish themselves as US entities so they can attract less danger averse investment opportunities with greater market growth potential. Headquarters may stay here technically but the wealth creation is nearly all across the pond even with the company talent gradually being transferred. How do we answer that?

        • Other countries often have a literal government/state stake in the stocks of a company that is critically important (e.g. energy or defence), often a controlling stake, but the UK government seems to flip-flop between fully privatised and fully nationalised and it never occurs to them to try for a middle position and capture the best of both.
          The British government is also comically bad at long-term planning and investment.

  7. Hes’s saying what everyone sensible knows. We just aren’t provisioned for war. We are provisioned for deployment, and hopefully deterrence, but theres absolutely nothing behind it. Less than ten days of munitions in a peer war and no hope of replacement in a realistic timeframe. Action is needed and we don’t have time to spare.

    • Speaking of which…Has UK Gov reported on the proposed new build munitions sites yet (supposed to be at the end of September)?

      • Of course not. Its all make beleive.

        There’s two huge issues. First is our procurement is useless and we get far less out of our defence budget than other nations. Second is our budget needs to move towards 3% of GDP by 2030, and 3.5% of GDP by 2035. Those things aren’t happening now, its just words.
        Healey resigned over the issue and now hes Chancellor he’s walked away from what he wanted, thats because he’s been told by the Treasury how close we are to a financial crisis.

        • The fact that our borrowing costs are the highest of all Western Countries despite our debt being per capita a good bit lower than the frighteningly increasing US total and long sky high French position and indeed even that of the deteriorating Japanese. Faith in the resilience of our economy as a small Country between the Wall of Europe and the hard place of a viciously unreliable US is non existent. Getting closer to Europe and others is vital for any semblance of stability but the way politically Europe is going that might soon be a basket case full of vipers too. The future is looking more and more dystopian by the month. The mid terms are now vital to all of us but we have to be prepared to find it creates even more madness across the pond from an administration that can’t afford to surrender power. What will the potential fallout to our economy, defence and political stability will come out of that scenario and is that opportunity just what Putin seeks to exploit?

          • And people think reducing the national debt shouldn’t be a priority.
            In 2016/17, we spent 5% of the government budget on repaying loans, that £39bn was less than the £46bn spent on defence.
            10 years later in the current financial year, the amount we’re spending on repaying loans has risen to £135bn (compared to ~£70bn on defence), which is ~10% of the government budget.
            £1 in 10, the taxman collects goes straight to repaying loans.

            • Actually its alot worse than that. Look at it this way, the government this year is on course to go over the planned 138bn deficit, this means that entire borrowing figure is going to pay the interest on the debt. Not pay the debt, just pay the interest on it. We have also had a deficit each and ever year since 2001. National debt is 97% of GDP, but is actually 250% of GDP when unfunded liabilities are included. We are so deep in the shit its unreal. Its no consolation to say so is every other Western country. Bonds yields rocketing everywhere.
              The worst crash in history is frighteningly close.

  8. Good talk, interesting to see if it works out. We are in a period of flux – everything changes. Cutting edge today, obsolete tomorrow and still waiting for yesterdays stuff to arrive. Things are far too complicated and take too long to get into service or get replacements. Whoever solves the complexity, cost and timescales problems should be the winner – and the government needs to support those efforts with orders, loans and support.

  9. This is actually a failure in our stock market regulation/tax regime and is down to the government. The boss of the London Stock Exchange was on the radio the other morning talking about it and it is pure shooting ourselves in the foot stuff.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here