The next significant milestone is the first Guided Firing, scheduled to take place later this year.
Minister for Defence Procurement Maria Eagle MP recently said the following in response to a written question from James Cartlidge MP.
“The SPEAR 3 programme is currently in the demonstration phase. The next significant milestone is the first Guided Firing, scheduled to take place later this year. Total investment in the SPEAR 3 programme comprises approximately £1.4 billion.”
The guided firing was initially set to occur in 2022, but technical issues delayed the test-fire. Despite this setback, the programme is moving forward with the aim of enhancing the UK’s air-to-surface capabilities, particularly on the F-35B fighter jets.
SPEAR 3 was initially scheduled to be operational by 2025, providing the RAF with an advanced air-to-ground weapon to enhance its precision strike capabilities. However, in November 2021, then-Defence Procurement Minister Jeremy Quin informed the House of Commons Defence Committee that full operating capability for the missile on the F-35B might not be achieved until 2028.
This delay stemmed from various technical and integration challenges encountered during the programme’s development.
The development of SPEAR 3 began in response to the need for a more flexible, agile missile system that could operate across a wide range of platforms, including the Eurofighter Typhoon, F-35B Lightning, and potentially the future Tempest aircraft. Despite the delay, the missile’s development has progressed steadily, and it remains central to the UK’s future air combat strategy.
SPEAR 3 is notable for its compact size, weighing under 90kg and measuring 1.8 meters in length. It features a multimode seeker and is powered by a Hamilton Sundstrand TJ-150 turbojet engine, giving it a range of over 140 kilometres.
The missile also boasts advanced guidance systems, including INS/GPS, and can be equipped with various fusing options depending on mission requirements. This adaptability, combined with its ability to be carried in groups of four within the F-35B’s internal weapons bay, makes SPEAR 3 a valuable asset for both air-to-ground and potential anti-ship missions.
One of the most exciting developments in the SPEAR programme is the SPEAR-EW variant, which focuses on electronic warfare capabilities. This version of the missile is being designed as a decoy and stand-in jammer, similar to the U.S. ADM-160 MALD. SPEAR-EW is expected to play a crucial role in suppressing enemy air defences, allowing allied aircraft to operate more freely in contested environments.
Can’t come soon enough. Great weapon, networked swarming mini cruise missile. Needs to be spread amongst as many platforms as possible.
Ship strike… three spear 3 and one ew from different directions followed by an nsm. Super.
AA
Great weapon excellent progress – Ground launch versions required soonest. F35 TR3 debacle concerning for integration
Ground launch will have a much shorter range.
Don’t forget that an air launched munition is travelling at Mach1(ish) at launch and at altitude which all saves fuel/energy thus increasing range.
Agreed but there was some talk of a boost pack. It would seem a logical option
The issue is how many types of munitions do you have in inventory?
If you have eight box mounted NSM and a larger number of helicopter launched missiles in the magazine as well as CAMM with a surface to surface mode what does yet another missile add?
Thinking needs to be clear on this, otherwise a plethora of missiles soaks budgets and people as the maintainers etc are needed to keep things 100%.
There is an element of going from famine to feast here on AShM systems.
I have no great knowledge here and I agree with your general take but CAMM is presently described as having some anti ship thus one presumes some ground to ground capability. However what is the latter in reality even aiming at a ship at sea is different to hitting a prescribed target on land so what are its limitations and what would its range be surface to surface. Obviously new versions are being developed ER and beyond with Poland so what will those offer as an all round solution. I ask this because obviously Spear 3 is a specialist missile… Read more »
Unless the CAMM radar can discriminate/recognize targets on land it has no capability against land.
It can and has demonstrated such
Agreed, I was thinking more of the Land element. The AShM has been a farce! Announce a capability gap …. Then realise we have no effective offensive weapons! Then quick 360 we’ll fund NSM, FC/ASW et al. There is no substitute for effective long term vision and planning – unfortunately we are not good at it – too much short term ism, treasury interference, political holt cows etc
Was a theoretical option for Land Precision Strike and MBDA made a graphic for a CAMM style quad pack, that’s it.
Now MBDA have made an actual LPS design and shown it at Farnborough, ground launch Spear is looking less and less likely.
LPS is now specfically a ground launched Spear….all the recent MBDA shows have shown a rocket boosted Spear derivative launching from M270. It’s been elongated to c3m long as well (from 1.8m) so should have larger warhead and far greater range. The CAMM/Brimstone mashup appears to be dead (it was actually a higher calibre than CAMM).
MBDA will be making a mistake if the form factor doesn’t match up with an M270/Himars launcher. A lot of people are realising the value of guided rocket artillery, and it’s worth providing a powered alternative to GL-SDB.
It’s specifically for M270 pods. they appear to have abandoned the cold launched CAMM/Brimstone based version in favour of the elongated Spear version. Does mean that naval use from Sea Ceptor, Land Ceptor or Boxer launch is now very unlikely as it will be hot launch.
Thanks for the confirmation.
Where does that leave the GL Brimstone that Poland have ordered then, are they ditching that and going with something else?
Ground Launched Brimstone is still going ahead for Poland and UK (under BGOAA). Fulfils a different role.
I’d seen the M270 launch rocket missile, but had no idea it was based on Spear. I’ve pulled up the image of it from the Complex Weapons agreement banner and can see the family resemblance. I don’t think it is simply a modification with extended body and rocket motor, though. The main structural change is that the new missile has 4 control fins rather than the triangular arrangement on Spear, so it looks a bit more like CAMM (presumably an adaptation for higher speeds). The next change is the obvious shorter wings. These seem to fold into the tube of… Read more »
MBDA have confirmed seperately to John Hawkes at Janes that it is now based on Spear. There won’t be CAMM components, no need as its wider diameter and has the Spear component base to build on. You can also clearly see the jet engine inlet on the underside of the missile, the rocket booster is jettisoned once its expired.
Can’t see the intake on pics I have seen, but sounds legit.
Is it a ramjet or just plain subsonic jet engine?
It will be a small turbine, probably the same as Spear (although hopefully we’ll move away fromt the US engine eventually.
Subsonic then?
Or will the jet just act as a sustainer with the rocket getting it supersonic?
Definitely subsonic
That’s odd
Why go to all of the effort of changing the wing layout and design to produce essentially the same capability as if we had produced a GL-Spear of the same style as GL-SDB?
I assume it will have a bigger warhead but there must be more to it than that.
Dramatically greater range. High speed or range is the choice you have to make. We’ll have speed with GMLRS-ER and PrSM. But for a moving target at that sort of range its actually beneficial to be subsonic as it may have to search for a target.
And yet they are supposed to have similar ranges, if anything less for LPS.
The requirement is only for an 80km range and Spear does 140+.
I cannot believe that the range disadvantage due to the booster relative to air launch is so great that more fuel is necessary to hit 80km.
My hunch is that this has a warhead closer to GMLRS than Spear.
MoD have recently stated that they will get moving target engagement capability at >150km from M270. It’s a little unclear if this is around the LRAE demonstration programme or LPS. But the Spear derived LPS proposal should have range far greater than that (I’d be surprised if it wasn’t getting close to 300km).. I’d expect it to have a larger sized warhead than Spear (Spear is c30-40lbs) but more in line with the proposed SpearGlide, which was to have a warhead more in line with the SDB2 (c105lbs). I don’t think it would approach the c200lb warhead size of GMLRS… Read more »
A quick look at Wikipedia’s page on SPEAR 3 and they mentioned something called Orckestrike, a collaborative swarm system… Send to some Ukraine..?
Cheers CR
That’s why it’s called Orckestrike 😀
Some good news.
Surprised there isn’t a story about the recent drop outs around the medium lift helicopter project. That seems to be a mess, caused by totally unrealistic budget
And need to be built here.
And politics.
And, I confidently suggest, not actually asking the capability user “what do you want, and why?”
I’d have bought OTS years ago, and bought FSS from S Korea too, just to get something.
Do you mean not asking which helicopter they want or what capability the want?
Maybe both? As far as I’m concerned politicians choose what suits them based on local jobs and internal politics, not what type might be the choice of the military.
I’m influenced towards this as I have heard from several military guys over the years that Blackhawk has always been the choice of the military.
Ok. So UK has invested heavily using previous military budget and tax payers money to the tune of £1.4 billion. You’d hope for that investment the UK armed forces are about to be armed with tens of thousands of these weapons including the useful ECM/ jamming and electronic warfare variant.
We shall see exactly what we as taxpayer’s get back as a return on investment. 👀
‘This delay stemmed from various technical and integration challenges encountered during the programme’s development.’
The U.S.A. continues to deny access to the F35 software. The U.K.doesn’t own these aircraft; we rent them. They, not we, do the ‘integration’. Roll on Tempest.