The United Kingdom is accelerating its efforts to develop a homegrown hypersonic missile, aiming to keep pace with global powers like China, Russia, and the United States.
The goal is to have the missile operational by 2030 as part of a broader strategy to bolster the country’s defence capabilities.
In a recent update, Lord Coaker, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, outlined the UK’s progress in hypersonic technology, highlighting the nation’s leadership role in this critical area. “The UK is demonstrating its leadership in the global hypersonic arena by active participation in the AUKUS Pillar 2 Advanced Capability Partnership,” he said. The UK has been a key player in advancing capability development alongside its AUKUS allies since the initiative began in 2022.
The Ministry of Defence has established a dedicated programme team, known as Team Hypersonics (UK), to focus on creating a sovereign hypersonic capability.
“Building on previous research and development, the MOD has established a Programme Team – Team Hypersonics (UK) – to cohere Ministry of Defence, industry and academia around the development of a sovereign hypersonic capability,” Coaker explained.
Central to this effort is the Hypersonic Technologies and Capability Development Framework (HTCDF), a £1 billion initiative designed to support the phased development of this cutting-edge technology. “Team Hypersonics (UK) has established the Hypersonic Technologies and Capability Development Framework (HTCDF),” Coaker said, adding that the framework involves 90 suppliers, including defence contractors, small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and academic institutions.
The UK’s hypersonic missile is expected to reach speeds of over Mach 5—five times the speed of sound—enabling it to potentially evade modern air defence systems due to its speed and manoeuvrability. This development is seen as crucial for maintaining the UK’s strategic deterrence in an increasingly competitive global security landscape.
Coaker also noted that testing of key technologies, such as a new hypersonic propulsion system, is already underway.
“With these enablers in place, the testing of critical sovereign-designed and manufactured missile sub-system technologies continues, including a novel hypersonic propulsion system,” he said. Several invitations to tender have been issued to further develop these technologies, paving the way for technical demonstrators and eventually a fully operational missile.
While the exact launch platform for the hypersonic missile has yet to be determined, options include deployment from land, fighter jets, or warships.
The Ministry of Defence has provided few details due to the sensitive nature of the project, but a spokesperson confirmed, “We are pursuing hypersonic technologies to further develop UK sovereign advanced capabilities. We continue to invest in our equipment to meet current and future threats.”
Calling Russia a global power is a stretch. Doubly so given we’ve seen exactly how effective Zircon is (namely, not at all).
Both Russia and China are duplicitous and image-obsessed, all the hype around hypersonic wunderwaffes seems extremely overblown. Reminds me of the panic around the MiG-25
Very valid point
Yes, but the panic over the MIG-25 did pave the way for the F-15, so if this leads to the UK developing and hopefully fielding hypersonic weapons, then maybe a little panic isn’t such a bad thing after all
Agreed!
Indeed and often the ‘panic’ is manipulated and magnified to encourage that very response. Often without it however nothing is done till there is something very much in existence to really panic over. Which makes it too often too late. Panic over the Germans getting the A bomb directly led to British studies (using German emigre mathematicians ironically) to determine its viability which was the first to show actual practicality started an emergency programme which ended up through demonstrating those scientific practicalities to American scientists and politicians creation of the Manhattan project. Considering Germany was indeed well ahead pre war… Read more »
On the flip side the same panic bankrupted the USSR, perhaps there’s a lesson there also.
I suppose that’s entirely down to the ability to end all life on Earth with its huge ageing, poorly maintained nuclear arsenal.
Certainly the Zircon and Kinzhal appear only faster versions of older Xoviet designs and relatively dumb and have to slow down below Hypersonic speeds in the terminal phase where they can be taken out similarly to other missiles that are supersonic so far from a wonder weapon just serial upgrades to long pre existing weapons. Now Avangard is on paper more advanced with similar capabilities to US missile developments. But all we are is what we are told by Russian propaganda and what little can be garnered from Western sources. We had the same hype with the previous two so… Read more »
All true, but presumption is the mother of all fuckups. Overestimate your enemy and one will win every time.
And thats why Russia is using free fall bombs with drone fins attached to hit targets, I dont really think is much of a worry.
Those glide bombs are proving very effective.
Sadly yes, doing what they need in the numbers game although with the increase in capacity of the Ukrainian air force they may struggle to deploy them as effectively with the limited range.
I would imagine that the range of such a missile would surely be the reckoning for whether land/sea/air deployment. More land is available than our rather paltry aircraft/ships availability.
Land-based weapons would need transport, basing, launch systems, and more troops to man the batteries. Air- and ship-launched weapons are generally easier to slot into existing support structures.
As you say, range will be an important factor, but realistically the UK has no requirement over for a land system over a naval/air weapon.
Most hypersonics are just glide vehicles strapped to a rocket and launching those has pretty much been perfected with a small team being able to deploy remotely set up and launch various locations. With dispersal of these systems being a very effective tactic to ensure weapons don’t get detected. UK has just a handful of ships and a potential enemy knows where these are at any point in time. So I wouldn’t discount the option.
“A potential enemy knows where these are at any point in time.” That’s more than a bit of an exaggeration. Knowing where a ship is during peace time, where it’s publicised what ports they’re visiting and transponders are active, is wildly different to trying to track a modern warship in a conflict area. A ship moving at 30 knots could be anywhere within a ~2800nm area in an hour, and be deployed anywhere in the word. A land-based system needs to be shipped to a firing position in advance of any likely conflict, unless the Europeans decide to forcefully bring… Read more »
There’s pros and cons to each system Himars has done very well evading the enemy. US Army has land based LAM so that pretty much reinforces that theirs benefits to have a land based launch platform.
You are aware that mk41 can’t launch a hypersonic missile with any range US has design a new launch tube for hypersonics and is fitting these to Zumwalt. Hypersonics you’re going need a lot of energy = fuel = big missile.
The US army has every toy under the sun, because they can afford to do so. Meanwhile, we don’t have the budget for sufficient numbers of the basics, let alone widespread deployment of hypersonics. I’m not saying there aren’t advantages to a land system, simply that a naval/air system aligns better with our situation. mk41 can’t launch a hypersonic missile with any range US has design a new launch tube for hypersonics and is fitting these to Zumwalt The larger tubes on the Zumwalt aren’t because they’re being fitted with a hypersonic missile; they’re for the Convention Prompt Strike weapon… Read more »
If missiles are fired towards the UK we have virtually nothing to stop them. Surely the best place for these missiles would be land, sea and air. Why limit their use to one platform?
This is an offensive weapon, not an air defence system. In a world of unlimited budgets and manpower, of course it would be preferable to have a full triad, but that’s not what we’ve got.
I wonder if the novel propulsion system could be a spin-off from Reaction Engine’s Sabre project?
That occurred to me as well. Especially as Reaction Engines are undertaking work on DARPA contracts… (according to Reaction Engine Website).
Cheers CR
My thought too, I read on their website some months back some reference to missile propulsion being an early/first potential use of their full engine technology once fully developed. That said Sabfe is quite a complex and one suspects will be an expensive expensive engine compared to Ram/Scramjets so though on paper an excellent choice in terms of cost probably a somewhat wasteful exploitation. However Sabre is a surface to Orbit design for a Space Plane so a lot of that capability may not be required for a missile so might be a much simplified variation. Such an engine (simply… Read more »
I would guess there’s potential for longer range with a Sabre engine for a given size of missile. Hypersonic flight generates a lot of heat which plays towards Sabre’s party trick of heat disposal.
I saw a release of reaction engines Yesterday claiming they paired some RR jet engine with their precooler and got a Mach 3.5 output.
That seems like a game changer to me.
Assuming Sabre is more expensive than Ramjet/Scramjet, then their proposal for a Sabre powered hypersonic UAS makes sense, especially if coupled with smaller hypersonic weapons for the last leg.
Could probably even use unpowered guided munitions, if a release mechanism were to be made reliable enough.
I imagine the toss distance from Mach 8 and 100,000 feet is quite significant.
They got it to function in Mach 3.5 conditions, which isn’t quite the same thing, but that does seem to be the way Reaction Engines is going.
Having developed an incredibly powerful heat exchanger, they have realised that it has applications far beyond SABRE.
Apparently some of the cooling tech is finding its way into Tempest.
The obvious use is compressor blade cooling where cooler air is passed through the blade to cool it. If you can drop the temperature of that air you can run the engine hotter, blades themselves could also be cheaper as they’re having to use more exotic materials to withstand the temperatures in newer engines, so increasing the cooling they could revert to more traditional blade materials. There also potential to reduce IR signature as part of the stealth aspect , mixing precooled air with hot exhaust
Another option could be to simply attach the heat exchanger around the outside of the compressor. Less pipework and fewer moving parts to have a similar effect using a more powerful cooling system. Also has more crossover with their normal work on ramjets.
Good point. I’d do both as the core of the engine is the hotest bleeding of some of cooled air to the blades would help. So it’s cooled both ways.
So will the Franco-British Future Cruise Missile be hypersonic instead of stealthy and subsonic (the French want the former, we want the latter but that seems an outdated approach now)? Will it build off this project or will the work done on the cruise missile feed into this?
Also, saying a hypersonic missile is expected to be Mach 5+ is rather redundant…
There will be two different Missile systems.
… and I can’t as things stand either of them feeding into the AUKUS orientated hypersonic work (which this seems linked to) as AUKUS is very much orientated around ITAR relief between the signees of which of course France is not included so would be ex lauded from any such technology cross fertilization. Equally the first of the two Anglo/French missiles, ie the land attack version is almost certainly based on existing French Scalp enhancements that they brought into service in recent years and is thus subsonic or perhaps might be low supersonic but certainly NOT hypersonic. The far later… Read more »
I am quite sure than the hypersonic missile developed together will continue. This is not for land operations. This is for sea operations. We developed VMax and did many exchanges with US Navy. Interests of the Marine Nationale is not to operate alone. It is to secure sea lines, many of which go from and to USA, with Royal Navy. I don’t see this programme, as important as the meteor, being postponed.
It’s interesting though when you consider the physics. Gut feel would tell you hypersonic to attacked fixed location strategic land locations, radars, airbases, marine ports, storage facilities, vessels alongside etc..while the slower, but highly manoeuvrable nonhypersonic cruise missile would cope better with manoeuvering targets at sea. If a hypersonic can take out a manoeuvrable target at Sea then fixed targets on land shouldn’t be an issue. Both would be equally well defended…..in which case why bother with the cruise ?
Hypersonique = expensive = useful for High Value Targets and heavily defended one => Ships
Stealth = subsonic = cheap = needed for a lot of targets => land usage
The US is going with stealthy and subsonic for alot of its missiles
No.
There are 2 missiles. 1 subsonic, stealthy and long ranged. The other is high supersonic, medium ranged with some LO shaping.
Usually I’d be happy about the UK developing a Sovereign capability in high end tech. But the time has come when we need to accept that we can’t afford to go it alone on things like this. I know some work was done years ago but we are years behind the curve on this than other countries now. Other than France who are going alone (quell surprise). US, Japan, Germany, Norway and Australia to name a few are all now tying up into collaborative projects so we should be joining one of those ? In fact if anyone thinks about… Read more »
I agree.
There are many debates about should we be spending more money getting the basics right or more on new shinies. Because politicians love announcing the new and shiny, it tends to be that we overspend there. AUKUS Pillar 2 is very much about that. Obviously we have to do both, but arguably we should be thinking more about the bread and butter defence outputs than we do. This particular bit of kit doesn’t need to be sovereign and perhaps new money would be better spent elsewhere.
Agree entirely. If we were spending 4% or 5% of GDP on defence, we might be able to afford such expensive new weapons. We are not, we are spending half that, 2.07%, and cannot afford the bread and butter replacement of older and near-obsolete kit. The question then is, what is the MOD proposing to run down or cut to pay for another grandiose shiny toys project? We already have Tempest on the horizon, which is going to be extremely expensive, even split between 3 partners, and AUKUS, which will be another costly venture. More urgent than hypersonis attack missiles,… Read more »
Don’t worry, free Bus passes will be axed next, that should help pay the bills. 😐
Tend to agree with most of that. Just a couple things however, the whole waverider concept inherent in glide bodies evolved from UK research in the 60s and 70s. It was mostly done in Universities and as such unless we don’t want to finance Universities doing such pure research it’s the sort of thing that gets studied in that environment and then goes on if successful into industry and to the benefit of UK plc. It’s not all implicitly a cost to Govt finances beyond decisions on grants to specific projects to further utilise such research, clearly it’s far more… Read more »
Good post, so often the benefit of sovereign intellectual property is overlooked. Its what can ensure the UK is a supplier selling stuff and not a customer buying it in.
Have you heard of Aster 30? Recently, the very missile used on your frigates, worked quite well in the land version to allegedly intercept Kinzal.
Why make a new Aster?
Maybe it’s an evolution of Aster and the tech involved might dovetail into whatever SAM /ABM system comes after Aster? Agree with you and others here,why land Aster is not employed in the UK to some degree of protection for ports, bases, key infrastructure and shared inventories with the RN. It’s so bloody obvious and Sky Sabre, CAMM MR seems to be taking forever. No real sense of urgency in the UK while on the continent Italy and France have just ordered additional Aster, 800 units between them I think. Other countries ordering Patriot and NASAMs. Hope nothing blows up… Read more »
At some point hypersonics will become bread and butter.
The reality is that we have always had a huge slice of the tech from work done decades ago in a whole load of projects.
It may be that we are closer than others might think to producing a steerable hypersonic.
Totally agree in ten years it simply won’t be a particularly novel concept we are thinking behind the curve here and I very much doubt since we worked on the waverider concept all those decades ago that even though we produced no solid physical from it that research has moved on in related research since. Indeed many of our experts on both this and other related projects continued work on it in the States. Creating a hypersonic missile is not that difficult creating a gliding body or a missile that offers something beyond that speed that adds advantage is the… Read more »
I totally agree with you here. The US is doing wonderful things with the Standard Missile (well named) which as new versions develop is pretty much becoming a universally employed missile to accompany AMRAAM itself developed into variations far wider than its initial deployment. I suspect their new longer range gradual replacement will do the same thing. They seem to be developing a very widely exploited two missile base from which Air, Sea and Land systems develop from. One short/medium and the other medium/long range base designs. We seem not to be obviously taking this route. We have developed an… Read more »
Sadly the UK missile industry has been notoriously bad at exploiting extant missile technology. The past Governments have also had a hand in this. As they keep cancelling promising projects, when defence cuts are needed. This is I believe down to risk aversion within the industry. There is none of the fail fast – learn fast approach. ASRAAM surface launch came about from the Government asking MBDA UK what it could do to give Ukraine a viable air defence system in the shortest amount of time and at a low cost. Ideally we would have given them Sky Sabre. But… Read more »
Sorry, “Meteor we punks…”? Slang? Usually able to fill in, but no joy on this occasion. 🤔
Ha ha. Should be: “Meteor will still have….”
Thinking on it some more. I would say both Meteor and HARM will be about equal against close emitters that “pop up” within 30km. After this Meteor’s ramjet engine gives it an advantage, the further the target is from the launch aircraft.
So are you suggesting a sort of British SiAW, based on Meteor? A SPEAR seeker kit with RWR inside a pointy nosecone on the front of the ramjet kit? Would it also be a good idea to include side strakes, a bit like SiAW, to extend the range? That would be at the expense of maneuverability but given Meteor is an atmospheric weapon probably still help. Failing that, moving the ramjets intakes to the side might have a similar effect aerodynamically. Then, would there be a way to retain a measure of AA capability? Even if the missile is less… Read more »
Yes, it would be highly beneficial for both our Typhoons and F35s to have a high supersonic multirole missile, that can be used on a number of targets, both air and ground, perhaps even surface vessels. The caveat is that it must still be capable of fitting into the F35B weapons bays. Meteor does have a problem aerodynamically due to its boxy air intakes. They don’t make the missile very aerodynamic, so its glide ratio when the ramjet has used up all its fuel is not great, especially when compared to other sleeker solid rocket based missiles such as AMRAAM.… Read more »
Thanks for the explanation. Would this version of Meteor (presumably an entirely new weapon based on the core airframe) still retain part of its anti-air capability? Would an air-launched version of MBDA’s new Land Precision Strike design from Farnborough do a similar job? If you took off what looks like the large and wide booster, it might just fit in an F35 (base GMLRS pod is 4m long and Meteor is 3.6m, this has folding fins). Ground launched with a booster it has a range of “80+km” and so from an aircraft at altitude that would probably be extended significantly.… Read more »
The best way to think about the land precision strike missile (LPS), is to think about a MLRS rocket with Brimstone strapped to the top. Its requirement was created by the Army for a deep fires weapon, that has the capabilities of Brimstone, ie the ability to identify and attack a moving target at range. However like the current Brimstone, it can be used against other targets, such as buildings, artillery etc. From what images I’ve seen, the tail fins on the LPS weapon are similar to Brimstone’s. Which are a bit small for engaging highly maneuvering targets, such as… Read more »
Hmm… Do you work for MBDA or one of the other companies? You certainly know a lot about their products. The “80km Brimstone” thing is exactly why I suggested LPS for air launch. The main body is supposed to have the same diameter as Brimstone or Spear but is nearly twice as long. It has wings, unlike Brimstone, so may function more like a cruise missile. I have the MBDA press release image with me, and it looks like all of the fins would have to fold inside the diameter in order to launch from a MLRS tube. That means… Read more »
Why would the Uk bother with ground launched ASRAAM as a lash up if we had already developed and deployed the superior ASRAAM based CAMM…..
Ukraine got ground launched ASRAAM only because of timing…Asraam Block V and earlier were being retired…so there was a ready stock of missiles that were going spare…
Meteor has been looked at by MBDA and RAF as an ARM, suspect this was part of JNAAM with the AESA seeker, but a capability is likely to be in place on Meteor MLU…
We wouldn’t use the Ukrainian ASRAAM solution in its current guise. Though I can think of at least two reasons to use ASRAAM over CAMM for a ground based air defence system. The first is mobility. Currently CAMM in its environmentally sealed launcher. Must be raised vertically for launching. Therefore the vehicle it is mounted to must stop. But it must also level itself before it’s ready for firing, which all takes time. ASRAAM on a trainable launcher does not need to be leveled or launched vertically. So it can be fired on the move. This would be crucial when… Read more »
Afternoon Davey, Hope that the ASRAAM-Supacat launcher can be developed a bit, even adopted by the UK and could even be on a naval mount. Might be seen to be competing with CAMM though. Has the UK looked at NASAM as that might take Meteor and ASRAAM?
Damn, that would be a fun GBAD system.
UKASAM?
Where did you find that France will go on hypersonic missile alone? We do a glider, the V Max, and it is not even alone..
France is developing the ASMP-A replacement which will be hypersonic…its a purely French affair…
True, but not the same missile as the anti shipping variant. The nuclear strike force never use the same missile as conventional forces, for a proper understanding of our nuclear grammar. Missiles developed with UK are not part of the deterrent force. They are linked to naval power projection in which I am glad we work together since we have similar views. If not similar, very close one. We are very happy to manœuvre with the Royal Navy, a force we respect and trust.
Don’t quite see how this fits in with FC/ASW which is apparently subsonic.
Will this new hypersonic cruise missile quickly supplant the latter if it’s being accelerated?
There are two FC/ASW products. One is conceptually souped up Storm Shadow, Future cruise, high subsonic. The other is Anti-Ship supersonic or hypersonic.
I thought previous information was subsonic land attack for 2028 and supersonic antiship for 2034. Even if this hypersonic is instead of the supersonic antiship I dont know how they are planning to make it 4 years earlier
Subsonic air 2028, supersonic air 2030, subsonic ship-launched 2032, supersonic ship-launched 2034, IIRC.
All subject to seemingly arbitrary delays.
Your dates are mixed up….
Subsonic ship launch is 2028
Subsonic air launch is 2030 (dependent on integration)
Supersonic anti-ship is 2034…its not clear if that is surface or air launched however…
Oh, ship launch is first?
I’d assumed Typhoon launch would be easier to do.
Those numbers do seem more realistic, though.
Ties in with what I say elsewhere this is research into ‘the possible’ and will determine viability and value of potential weapons. The ‘lesser’ end of hypersonic missiles could certainly be produced by around 2030 (anticipating some delay mind) what form they might take is the real question and would to achieve that date have considerable commonality with an existing weapon no doubt. I’m sure if the motivation were there Meteor or other existing designs could be so upgraded if necessity dictated it, it’s just any cost/benefit to be considered on such weapons. Probably pointless extending Meteor’s range for example… Read more »
Apologies, am somewhat confused. Is the UK actually simultaneously conducting a sovereign program re hypersonic missiles, participating in the AUKUS Pillar II initiative, and potentially, cooperating w/ the French on a hypersonic variant of FC/ASW? Hopefully, someone is coordinating these efforts/programmes to avoid unnecessary overlap and duplication of effort. If not, this could prove to be an intuitively obvious reason why 2+% of GDP does not cover the waterfront of defence requirements. 🤔😳😉
I believe we are cooperating with the French on a high supersonic, which the French would rather was hypersonic. What is happening with AUKUS pillar 2 and this £bn initiative, I don’t know. This is the first time I’ve read about a sovereign hypersonic capability.
Actually relieved not to be the only one lost at sea re this topic. 🙃😏
Indeed I write more about that and possible overlap in the latter in an earlier contribution if Challenger wishes to read it so won’t repeat it here.
Lol. If you accelerate a hypersonic missile what’s next? Speed of light? Warp speed? Hyperspace?
Seems to be a bit daft. And a lot of money.
We’ll end up with one warship, one fighter, one super-soldier but with all the latest eye wateringly expensive kit(FFBNW at least) & drones. I do think we need adequate amounts of basic equipment & troops before fights of fantasy.
Sorry but some of you guys sound like those who even in the thirties argued against monoplane fighters as too complex and expensive oh and couldn’t out turn a biplane in a dogfight. The rest is history. The same argument persisted around the introduction of the jet engine that very nearly drove Whittle out of the project pre war.
Unless you can create accurate models and wargame the outcomes, you are left to guess what’s the right tech to pursue with limited cash. I’m not saying we can’t get hypersonics, I’m saying there are better things to spend money on.
If you can tell me why there’s a step change in effectiveness going fron Mach 4 to Mach 6 missiles, I might change my mind.
Then we would end up doing nothing, waiting for others to develop it, test it, then we buy it. Another point if you understand how it works you’ll also understand how to counter it. Hypersonic actually refer to where flight dynamic changes so traveling at sea level at mach 5 at 20degrees C is where this happens. Mach 6 you get speed of 2 km/second so with a 35 km radar horizon on a ship facing a Mach 6 hypersonic you get 17.5 seconds to determine the threat, launch and intercept . But you need to hit the target further… Read more »
Its the whole point of RnD have an idea nature it, test it, it fails disregard it or branch off it.
Future manned combat aircraft will rely on stealth to defeat SAM defences. Whilst a stealth aircraft can fly supersonically, even with super cruise, fuel consumption means it will mostly fly at sub sonic speeds. Logically, a stealthy, sub sonic cruise missile will be even harder for ground defences to detect and intercept. So the long range version being developed as part of the two missile FCASW programme shouldn’t need hypersonic speed to penetrate defences.
Curious that the long range subsonic variant is supposed to be in service by 2028, with the new hypersonic missile only 2 years behind.
We already have the tech to make ballistic missiles that are already hypersonic, sometimes very high hypersonic.
Indeed – Mach 20, making interception extremely difficult with US GBAD failing more often than not. The advantage claimed for hypersonics is their greater ability to manouevre, making interception even more doubtful. But at hypersonic speeds, manouevreability is quite limited. As another post reminds, the Mach 3 Mig25 essentially flew straight.
That’s what some people can’t get their heads around it’s something that has in its base form been common for many decades it’s just a matter now of going beyond the base we are familiar with and in this space some hypersonic vehicles are more advanced and complex and capable than others depending upon the envelope and capability required. But Everything is complex and expensive in the early stages if we use that as the reason for not pursuing research then nothing will be pursued because we are too blind to the future potential and cost efficiencies to be gained… Read more »
we’ve also seen in russia that storm shadows have no problems getting through russian air defense- as well as ATACMs which are older semi-ballistic missiles. the reason russia and china developed hypersonics is because they need to- patriot and AEGIS is far superior to anything those countries have. the USAF for years has preferred smaller, more affordable stealth cruise missiles and anti ship missiles. its almost like they knew what they were doing! congress is pretty much forcing them to spend on hypersonics now because the media has the people and congress convinced that china and russia would absolutely roll… Read more »
There are many US hypersonic programmes. They have their place, yes I suspect high value targets will be the prime use case but it would be madness not to possess them. And only when you have them can you truly evaluate their true potential especially as they are further developed. If 2nd or 3rd gen versions are substantially superior exploiting new understanding, technologies and advances we cannot fully anticipate then by rejecting their value now then you have not created the ground work in which to build those true ‘wonder weapons’. After all no one truly anticipated the effects of… Read more »
Ask the Ukranians about the efforts they have to put in to de ieve Russian air defences. If it were so easy one presumes they would have destroyed the Kursk bridge by now. From what I read if often takes three days of softening up and deception to hit high priority targets. I bet they would love to have hypersonic missiles to add to their arsenal and give flexibility to their planning.
BUT BUT BUT
Some press reports (or speculations?) say that funding of new technology for the armed forces is to be cut back severely. Can this possibly be true ?
Ms Reeves has asked for £5.5b cuts across all depts to help close the ‘black hole’. The MoD has been asked to ask its suppliers for proposals to cut in year spend. My guess is BAE can find a way to rescope programs so items are shipped this year but invoices are pushed into next year- basically we need to borrow at zero interest from BAE. Creative accounting. I’m sure they can afford it. I also see spending level authorisations for MoD civil servants to buy consultancy services have been slashed.
BAe have a lot of choice right now on customers not sure why they would take a hit, they’re not known for playing ball with the government. Big one for BAe would be to say OK but we want one T26 to go to Norway to secure that deal. Both Gov and BAe win, BAe secure multi billion order which help with Labours growth plans (yeah all cheer Rachel) and don’t need to make milestone payments on one of the ships in construction. Navy get a bit shafted for a few years but with the refocus on Europe they can… Read more »
Its been validated and companies have been approached to provide savings, note that doesn’t necessarily mean a capability cut if the company can deliver the same product or service for less. But what company in their right mind would say ‘yeah we could have given you that for 20% less’ 😀. One of the UK satellite companies was approached are fearful their program will be axed.
Also these are not spending cuts they need to fund the pay rises so defence spending will stay above 2%
The question is what is going to launch it? We would have to wait for block99 for F-35 if it could carry exteranl (no stealth so wasting platforms biggest plus), intergrating on phoons is possible but the fleet is shrinking. The ship based solution is FC/ASW so cannot see why would waste even more cash intergrating into MK41 especially if it’s not likely to be exported. Of course if we had ground based hypersonic AShM with 3-500Mile range nobody would come near us then!!! and would expect a fair bit of export interest?
Block 99? 🤔 Surely you jest, good sir? 😉 Since Block 4 is proving to be the Full Employment Act of the 2020s (and quite probably the ’30s), one shudders to contemplate future weapon integration efforts. 😱 Best to target GCAP as the platform of choice. 😁
I’m sure the GCAP partners would be willing to integrate US weapons as well were the USAF to express interest in a small purchase, given the delays and equivocation over NGAD.
For a price, of course…
In my dreams it would the five squadrons of F15EX we are buying.
There was a report a few weeks ago on X of basing missiles in Germany, and developed with them.
Great, but rumour has it, and that’s all it is at the moment, civil servants have been told to cut R&D funding by 20 per cent. If true ?
Geoff, does that extend to military R&D as well?
As far as I know, yes but as I said it was in the D.T. so…🙄
Thank you Geoff
👍
Its only military RnD as far as I’m aware. Companies doing RnD has had some tax breaks removed also.
Thank you expat
Serious question: Do we really need it? Massive challenges to develop a hypersonic missile or vehicle. Don’t we already have the technology to reach targets by various means? So are we spending a fortune on this just because Russia etc claims to have them, but they’re not that effective?
The long awaited FC/ASW program has already dropped the hypersonic option.
Hum, not really
With Reaction Engines, the U.K. is already in a good position regarding the power plant.
To be honest I think that they will be a lot of talk, even money spent on R+D, then prototypes, followed by cancellation and I am taking about Ships, aircraft, missiles etc…Labour will simply rely on the rest of NATO to defend the UK..October will be the defining moment
i’d say save money and purchase the SIAW which is the AARGM-ER anti/radar AND land attack missile. its thought to go over mach 4.5, and actually according to lockheeds website it travels “hypersonically”, can be carried internally on the F-35 and is in production now. if the SIAW is too small or you want something ground/ship based im sure the US would sell the dark eagle which is either already in service or entering service this year. better yet, purchase some of both system. the RAF is without anti-radar missiles anyways so this would take care of that. a billion… Read more »
I’m not keeping up, do hypersonics hit moving targets and the physics sorted.
Yes, a hypersonic missile can hit a moving target. But a lot will depend on the target’s velocity and the type of missile being used. For example a ship will be much easier to hit than say a tank, even though both will be moving at a similar speed tactically. Purely based on the ship being bigger,.thereby giving the missile a larger target to aim at. For targets that are manoeuvring eratically. A hypersonic missile cannot turn as tightly to cut the corner for an interception. This is due to the induced g multiplication. The missile’s airframe would need to… Read more »
Pardon my complete lack of technical knowledge of hypersonics, but it’s that fast and flies far, there seems to be a big potential here for SAM/ABM use as well as AShM and Land attack? Or, would it operate differently to other missiles, like an Aster?
Militarily ATACMS seems to have been very effective in Ukraine/Russia, China similarly has developed area denial capability with its missiles and Iran/Houthi have been shoiwng how effective and accurate ballistic missiles have been. Currenlty the UK has no similar capability and it would seem that this is going to be something that’s likely to be a needed capability in the next few years.
Will it fit inside an F35B’s weapons bay?
Oh dear me another Pipe dream gobbling up monies that have to be borrowed Why Absolutely critical to success in developing Hypersonics is Wind Tunnels The USA abandoned years ago due to the massive power sources to produce High winds to enable properly test and develop China constructed a electric power station solely to provide energy for their Power tunnel This produced results that allowed successful deployment But here’s the big Rub Whilst conducting these wind tunnel tests it very quickly became apparent that whilst the missile is subjected to such high velocities, Then simple physics induced serious depletion of… Read more »
Lol, I see you are back and as yet still Sober ! Tell me, at what point in your consumption routine do you turn into an angry drunk ? 😂
Oh dear me Insults are required to counter all I say Well for you all here’s some more Facts derived from Respected Academic sources and no axe to grind Of the most vital areas of research , development and implementation Of technologyy for success in the future Out of the 44 activities identified China leads in 37 of them The UK Zero Of the top research institute’s globally China out of 20 nr. Has 14 of them Once more UK zero China alone has more than 3 million University graduates employed Solely in Research and development China has 9 very… Read more »
Please, oh please, can you help us? What shall we do? This is so huge and big, it seems impossible and incredible… Could you introduce us to your masters?
Masters I have none
Other than my mind which is open and free that none can imprison
I bow to no one
Nor Doff my cap
And refuse to be a servant of the UK
State
I am a citizen of Scotland
Of which none can deny
I bet that power station they constructed was coal fired. They must PTSL at us.🙄
I just took a look at your activity history, you wrote two words, 3 months back “Test Comment” and managed a full stop at the end !!!! Funny thing is, you arrived at the same time that another “regular” left. Hmmmm, I get it now ! 😎
Easily explained the software of this
Journal is not upto it’s task and has inherent defects
Whilst I conduct my business with
China I use only soft and hard IT
That’s Chinese
Vastly superior to the hideously expensive Western crap that problems continually arise whilst using such as currently
Yesterday via a UK bank endeavours to transfer monies between various accounts and only after hours of phone calls and efforts which last night were not resolved
However the computer glitch causing the problem were finally
Resolved at 1330 hrs today
You lot got one helluva catching up to do
“Easily explained the software of this journal is not upto it’s task and has inherent defects”
So you blame the site for your lack of punctuation ???
The rest of your comment makes no real sense either.
Can you come back later as Ulya please as He/She could at least type English better ? 😁
How can you demonstrate your ‘leadership’ in Hypersonics when we have NO M5 weapons… it just confirms my opinion of politicians…. if hot air could power are M5 programme we would be a world leader…..