British defence technology company QinetiQ has announced a deal to provide the US Army’s Threat Systems Management Office (TSMO) with a customised version of its Banshee Jet 80+.
The MQM-185B is a high-performance aerial target and will be fully compatible with the Army’s proprietary Ground Aerial Target Control System (AGATCS).
“The MQM-185B, combined with QinetiQ’s engineering and operational flexibility, enables us to deliver a customised platform that satisfies TSMO requirements and makes its operations more agile and cost effective,” stated Ryan Peterson, Customer Account Manager at QinetiQ Target Systems.
The Banshee Jet 80+ is designed to simulate real-world threats such as cruise missiles and enemy jets, facilitating more accurate and challenging training exercises.
The MQM-185B variant offers unique benefits including the ability to reach a maximum altitude of 30,000ft and perform low level sea skimming and terrain following, thus providing a realistic threat for the military to train against. “Using highly accurate targets such as the Banshee is becoming a necessity for our defence customers. As the threat environment increases in complexity, organisations such as TSMO are seeking technology capable of delivering complex training and evaluation exercises,” Peterson added.
Wonder if we could fit a warhead to these? having 60mile / 400mph treetop skimming drone that could distract enemy air defence while others weapons (Stormshadow etc) do real hits would be handy espicially if can be made into a SEAD weapon? A defender would have to honour the threat.
Good Idea. Even fit a EW package.
It’s such a good idea we are already developing it with SPEAR EW.
The RN are looking at these already as part of the FMAF.
Yes, they were embarked on HMS Prince of Wales.
To provide aggressor training replicating aircraft, missile threats in place of Hawks.
The RN is also looking to expand use of the type.
Some very interesting kit is starting to appear on the market!
“South Korean ammunition firm Poongsan has unveiled a 127 mm gun-launched, extended-range guided munition for naval applications at the MADEX 2023 exhibition in Busan.
Dong Won Lee, Poongsan’s director of defence products exports, told Janes that the concept of 127 mm Gliding Guided Naval Munition (GGNM) is centred on the projectile being fired on a steep trajectory to a high altitude, estimated to be in the region of 20 km.
He said that once the munition reaches the highest point in its flight its wings are deployed, allowing the projectile to glide to a range of approximately 100 km.
The inclusion of Global Positioning System (GPS)-assisted guidance enables high accuracy, even at maximum range, Lee said. The navigation system also allows the GGNM to follow a flightpath to avoid obstacles or known defences, although this will have an impact of the achievable overall range, he said.”
Is there any evidence that Orcs can down a significant percentage of Storm Shadow missiles?
I don’t think there is TBH.
So you’d be better off with slightly more Storm Shadows to compensate for the attrition rate.
That is the most cost effective solution as Storm Shadow’s R&D costs are expended and sustainment and storage exists.
Storm Shadow has a 450kg payload so it can carry various other roles if desired.
If the Russians had shot down any Storm Shadows in UkR they would have filled the worlds media with pics of debris, serial numbers etc and descriptions of how good their air defence systems are. They do claim to have shot SS down in Syria during a joint attack on a chemical weapons facility
Or maybe its just that the UkR are saving them up for a special occasion
I agree that they probably haven’t shot any SS down in Ukraine.
My point being that you can mitigate the small % risk by simply having a few 10’s more missiles rather than a whole extra project.
Just looked into Putin’s billion pound Crimea bridge. It’s quite large and runs on a large number of structural supports, probably intentionally to give it some damage tolerance. Storm shadow strikes against the bridge pillars might be able to bring it down in sections. A better approach probably is to just smash the deck in multiple places to make it unusable.
Like it but we have to be careful that the sea passage in and out of he Asov remains open and isn’t cluttered by potential bridge debris. Like the idea of hitting the Russian forces from behind, the sides and exit points. They need to be shovelled out. Strength to Ukraine, their armed forces, people and the president!
🇺🇦
The previous attack was on the bridge deck – that can be worked around pretty quickly.
Getting rid of the piers is a more permanent way of closing the bridge.
However, that needs considerable precision oomph that is probably best put in place by SF. Charges need to be positioned and tamped.
Really LGB’s guided in by SF would be optimal or using homers that were pre placed.
The quality of the concrete used to build the bridge was brought up the other day:
https://i.postimg.cc/5yYDJzcc/Opera-Snapshot-2023-06-07-121850-twitter-com.png
That’s actually a fair point but is Storm Shadow remotely controllable as Banshee presumably is? Giving your idea some mileage with some basic suggestions, swap-out the warhead on the ‘dummy’ for whatever remote relay system is in Banshee (for mid-course corrections etc), or, as Ron says, retro-fit some kind of EW system to it ala AGM-160B MALD maybe?
The newest versions of SS are mid course correctable.
The oldest ones were, as far as I know, not.
There is an upgrade program ATM.
I’m *assuming* we have gifted the Ukrainians the oldest ones that we were not going to upgrade to the new standard.
I doubt the Ukrainain will be doing to many midcourse updates to retarget. Warehouses, bridges, ports, rail tracks etc all nice static targets 🙂
Exactly so.
They don’t care they can blow up strategic and theatre level stuff now. Game changer for them.
Yes, thanks SB, just been reading the link Nigel sent out earlier about the SPEAR4 upgrade to StormShadow. MBDA produce what must be some market-leading products. Long may it continue.
Agreed. We shall have to see whether SS is as ECM resistant as claimed. The Kerch bridge connecting East Crimea with Russia would indeed be a good target. If it has not already been tried
Ukraine a few weeks back officially said that they intend to leave the bridge intact so that Russians have the ability to get out voluntarily. That was a clever bit of propaganda both in not bottling up those forces leaving no option but to resist or surrender (or shot trying to) while more significantly I think while raising those questions in the occupiers minds it equally adds to their thinking that they have the capacity to take it out at a time of their choosing. I do wonder if the destruction of the Dam if it were indeed intensional was a panicky response to fears of the peninsular being cut off in the west and with a wish to take as many forces away as possible from that Kherson front to defend a prospective thrust towards Melitopol close to which there are the only other easy access points to the peninsular. Perhaps the best bad choice they have. I do wonder if it was a premature event however knowing how bad Russian communication down the command structure is. The Russian Colonel shooting at Wagner troops and subsequently being ‘arrested’ by them shows just how bad things can get, so who knows what level of incompetence is possible.
I would start from asking who gains most from the destruction of the dam. Clearly, flooding the eastern side of the river makes using armour and SPG difficult – if the Russians are responsible it also says much about what they are afraid of. Its a scorched earth policy and cutting off the water supply to Crimea suggests the Russians are resigned to losing it. It is an act of desperation and the war criminal Putin must have authorised it.
I’ll give it a go.
Russia loses: cooling water for the NPP, irrigation/drinking water for land east of the river and irrigation water for Crimea (the population survived many years with the canal closed), power from the Hydro plant at the dam, loss of its built defences on the east of the river
Ukraine loses: the same hydro power, irrigation water to areas west of the river/reservoir, fish stocks
Russia gains: not much
Ukraine gains: once the water has gone in estimated 10-15 days a potentially shorter river crossing north of the dam and another south that will no longer be at risk of destruction by flooding, it took the results of the attacks on Russian lines out of the news, with superior PR turn Russia into more of a pariah state.
Anyone add to the lists?
I will add. The dam collapsed due to the Russians not maintaining it and fixing known issues.
Ukraine would of needed tons of explosives to blow a dam. How could it get that into the dam? Answer it couldn’t.
Now Russia did previously put explosives on the dam according to some. Whether they removed them is unknown.
No matter what the dam wouldn’t of collapsed if Russia stayed in its borders. The dam was in its captured territory so its there responsibly to maintain it.
Some officials probably spent the maintenance money.
I think the dam collapsed due to bad maintenance, previous damage rather than an actual attack.
Ryan Macbeth did a piece on the dam on YouTube.
It’s still Russia’s fault as its in a captured area.
Nearly all of the staff that worked in the dam previously had left taking with them the knowledge and abilities to maintain the dam. Surprisingly to some the dam workers didn’t want to live under The delights of Russian occupation. 🙈🤦🏼♂️
On European Pravda it states the Russians claims to have shot down numerous SS while the Ukranians had claimed none had been shot down. Some Russian claims that all missiles had been shot down unfortunately for them were made at the same time of ground imagery showing ground strikes so who knows what the real truth is. Even Prigozhin Stated 2 days ago that claims coming out of the Russian Min of Defence was ‘deluded’ so little point in taking anything they say as remotely accurate, most of it is for internal consumption anyway and apart from Milbloggers most seem to accept what they are fed unquestioned, even if it was stated that elite 200th Separate Motor Rifle Brigade had captured the Channel Ports.
Agree we have already sunk developmental costs into storm shadow, we might as well continue to develop the weapon and expand its repertoire rather than starting again.
I don’t think any storm shadow have been shot down. The Ruskfascists are so scared of the weapon system they’ve gone after Ukraine’s SU25/22s that could potentially deliver the weapon. Putin is very very worried Crimea could get it’s bridge cut and then become exposed and ripe for recapture.
Isn’t Storm Shadow to be replaced by FC/ASW at the end of the decade?
“Storm Shadow MLR/SPEAR Cap 4 entered into service in early 2022, following highly successful denied-environment trials during mid-2021,” an MBDA spokesperson told Janes . “The upgrade of the stockpile has been running for several years now and final upgrades are expected to complete in 2022,” the spokesperson added.”
LINK
Off-topic but it looks like a very interesting development for the Army.
“The UK’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) is working on a Lightweight Fires Platform technology demonstrator programme to replace the 105 mm Light Gun, Janes learnt on the last day of Defence iQ’s Future Artillery 2023 conference held in Munich from 30 May to 1 June.
A three-year pre-concept study to de-risk technologies on which a new Light Gun could be based was conducted in 2020–23 by BAE Systems, together with QinetiQ and engineering consultants Horiba Mira and Arke.
This resulted in a detailed design for a remote-controlled/autonomous unmanned 127 mm self-propelled gun technology demonstrator that is electrically powered and optimised for strategic and tactical mobility.
It is fitted with a 14-round magazine and autoloader and weighs less than 3,000 kg, with further mass reduction possible.”
Ooooh. 👍
Now sounds promising. Remotely controlled might allow the Army to significantly increase fire power within the troop level constraints they currently face…
All sound very promising, although at the risk of being a party pooper, wht 127mm? OK That is the USN / RN caliber but I am not aware of any other Army in NATO using that caliber – although I admit I am not as up todate with land force developments as I used to be.
Cheers CR
Maybe not the army, but the army unit that support the RM could use it?
29 RA use the LG, so sounds ideal deployed ashore from RFAs as part of the FCF LRGs.
Question answered!
I was just looking at that on Janes too. Looks a bit like a gun mounted on a mecano tractor! Kind of neat though. Just wait for this to be copied! You wonder why the newer tanks also don’t standardise on the 5″/127mm and not 120/130mm but probably different shell calibres for different purposes. I’d like to see this further developed into a light weight naval mount. Anyway good to see some British engineerimg ingenuity happening.
Question on SS. Can this hit ships/moving targets? And if it was cannister or MK41 compatible could be more useful off ships.
I would think it is more than possible to do, however, the “Future Cruise/Anti-Ship Weapon” due around 2030 will cover this role.
“In 2002, France started the detailed development of a naval variant of Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG.
At the end of the project definition phase, MBDA had concluded that the best approach was to take components from SCALP but house them in a new airframe that could fit within a 535mm standard torpedo tube.
The Royal Navy was fully briefed during the development but it did not select the missile. For launching from the SYLVER Vertical Launch System, a booster would be used to eject the missile and turn it over to the direction of travel.
Using a Turbomeca Microturbo TRI 60-30 turbine engine it has a range that is variously reported but generally accepted to be between 250km and 300km, although many sources suggest up to 560km.
This stand-off range allows the UK to attack targets without entering the engagement zone of anti-aircraft weapons.
Once released, wings deploy and using its GPS/INS and Terrain Profile Matching (TERPROM) navigation system guide the missile to the target area at a low level using terrain avoidance and masking.
On the final approach, the nose cone is jettisoned and the infrared sensor guides the missile to the impact point, performing terminal manoeuvre as required.
This image recognition terminal guidance system is extremely accurate, there have been reports of Storm Shadow missiles following each other down the first entry hole.
This accuracy provides mission planners with many options, especially when seeking to exploit target weaknesses or avoid surrounding areas.
The mission planning software allows every detail of the flight to be pre-programmed.”
LINK
The Russians claim to have shot down over 20 Storm Shadows but threat that figure in the same way as you treat Kiev’s claims on incoming Russian missiles. Given that the SS is a subsonic missile the Russians are presumably using (in addition to their GBAD) the same tactics as the RAF would use in a similar situation, AAMs. The RAF probably regarding such cruise missiles as a sitting ducks.
You don’t have to be “scared” to target the aircraft and airfields involved. They hit the main one a week or so ago, destroying several Su-24, the only UAF plane capable of carrying it. The Su=22 is long gone although Poland probably still has some and the Su-25 (and the Mig-29) can’t.
Crimea coped before the bridge was built and now it has the land corridor as well. It would take more than the failure of the bridges to make it exposed.
I think that is optimistic the reason the bridge was built was exactly because of the vulnerability of Crimea and risks to other means of supplying it should things get hot which of course it has become in spades. The one other physical connection, the Arabat Spit has considerable plans for being beefed up but that too will be under threat from any advance towards Melitopol and of course water via the North Crimean canal is now not only viable but won’t be in the future post war without a resolution acceptable to Ukraine. So comparing pre war to the present scenario is as I started this, rather optimistic as it relies on issues that will be far more hostile and the bridge far more crucial as Ukraine becomes far less compliant in any realistic future scenario.
Well put but at the time the bridge was built they really needed it as there was no land bridge via Mariupol. Russia will if necessary expend a lot of effort to defend that link. As indeed it is currently as the UA attempts to strike south.
It’s exactly what MALD does and SPEAR EW will do much the same, the difference is these can be carried by an aircraft and the aircraft can carry multiple versions of it.
The most informative site “RAF LUTON” revealed some facts on another cutting edge US UAV today:
https://i.postimg.cc/3wBpxDKq/Opera-Snapshot-2023-06-07-115916-twitter-com.png
Aah the D21 love that drone, pity it was such a disaster, might as well have had those specs for all the use it was. But I guess it fed into the knowledge bank. Amazing to think that was launched from B-52s some 60 years ago which were nominally rather older and less sophisticated technology by comparison and yet though the D21 is long, long gone and most who remember it first hand probably dead or in their dotage, the former is not only still with us but is being upgraded indeed.
Even without a warhead you’d imagine there’s the potential to accompany strike missions by Storm Shadow etc in acting as an accompanying decoy in much the same way as B52’s used to launch “Quail”
The jet powered Banshee in particular is a very difficult target to detect on radar. As it has a very small radar signature. During normal live fire trials, it has to be fitted with a radar repeater/amplifier to make it easier for radars to detect.
Without the repeater it used to replicate stealth aircraft and missiles. I do know of a certain USN cruiser whose lookouts detected the Banshee before the radar did.
The US Army will be likely be using the Banshee in a similar way to what is going on in the Ukraine War. Where drones are used for both reconnaissance and kinetic missions. Where the emplaced air defence systems are finding it hard to detect and track them.
Sounds like it doesn’t it, I think everyone has had a wake up call with the drone wars of late.
I had assumed the US had an equivalent to Banshee tbh. I think it has been useful despite being essentially a target drone in educating all concerned about the potential for such jet platforms well beyond its initial design purpose. Certainly a great base to start from for any new platform. Am I right that it can be configured electronically to mimic a whole range of current aircraft/missiles?
Yes, the banshee can be programmed to mimic any “subsonic” missile. It can do the pop-up bunt maneuver, where it then dives on to the target from a high angle. The Banshee has been used to replicate enemy aircraft. It can be “tailored” to match known RCS and IR profiles of certain threats.
It can also carry the Rattler. This is a small supersonic (Mach 2.5 I believe) target drone. Its range isn’t great, but it can also be programmed to mimic missile attack profiles.
The Banshee has been sold to lots of Countries for use as a target drone. Oman are one of the latest, where they used a Typhoon firing an ASRAAM to target one.
The US have the BQM-167 Skeeter, which Kratos have developed into reconnaissance drone. It is a lot bigger than the Banshee and quite a bit quicker, though is still subsonic. It is not as stealthy as the Banshee.