Defence Secretary John Healey has confirmed that work on the joint UK-German long-range strike missile is speeding up, describing it as one of several major milestones under the Trinity House defence agreement.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Healey told MPs: “Within weeks, we will have German P-8s flying out of Lossiemouth. We have a new cyber programme to conduct joint activities. We have accelerated work on a new 2,000km deep precision strike missile, and a new £200 million bridging deal to support the British Army. This agreement is more important now than when we signed it a year ago.”
The missile project was first announced in May 2025 as part of the Trinity House Agreement, a bilateral defence partnership aimed at strengthening European security, deterring threats on NATO’s eastern flank, and deepening industrial collaboration between the UK and Germany.
At the time, the Ministry of Defence described the system as one of the most advanced weapons ever developed by Britain, capable of striking targets over 2,000 kilometres away. The programme is also expected to drive investment into the UK’s defence sector and sustain thousands of skilled jobs across both nations.
Industry sources and defence commentators have speculated in recent months about the pace and scope of development, with few public details released since the project’s initial announcement. Healey’s remarks provide the first on-record indication that technical work on the missile continues to advance within the framework of the Trinity House Agreement.
The broader partnership also covers cooperation on maritime warfare, including a joint procurement plan for Sting Ray torpedoes to equip the P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft. German crews have already flown alongside RAF personnel as part of growing operational collab.
Healey reiterated that the UK-German partnership is “making a positive impact on our security and economy,” describing it as vital to both European defence and Britain’s industrial base.
“speeding up”. So twenty years or only ten?
Come on Geoff. These incredibly complex weapons don’t enter service overnight. Good news German P8s will operate out of Lossiemouth and they are purchasing Stingray
I was being ironic Robert but having said that nothing in this country seems to arrive on time anymore!
With a nutter in the white House and a contemptuous and leaderless Capitol, we in the UK continue to rely on US controlled softwear to equip our military.This is so stupid and a waste of billions of pounds, it is rather like buying a motor car and having to get the permission of your neighbour to go for a drive.Utterly stupid.
Presidents come and go. Our relationship goes much deeper and longer lasting than the residents of the Whitehouse and 10 Downing street.
Your comment sounds good Robert,and I wish that were the case,but sadly in the real world that no longer applies.Hence the reluctance of the french and others to trust the US.I do accept that the british, (due to their own stupidity) have virtually destroyed their industrial capacity, and as a result finds itself in an almost impossible situation.
Well as the Germans are involved one hopes pretty damn quick, or is the unquestioning inbuilt belief in German technological supremacy the world loves to buy into just a myth. Now there’s a question to fathom.
We can only hope !
What does MOD talk mean when it says speeding up? ie meeting, chats about , ideas but no orders ever, like most things its joint projects that may or may not get there in the end. New bridging equipment, good news how about new SPG’s, bulldog replacement, counter UCAS defence, etc etc. All talk and not much else like the last 16 months. Are the MOD not buying any thing as they saving up for a big spend or are skint and just hidding it? Or most likely no one whats make choice or decide any thing just release statements about not a lot. What do the now gapped/gifted/retired AS90 units use day to day? most like brushes to sweap the empty gun parks, again.
Well I’m sure down the line we will learn how much of the new promise on military spending is real, how much is manipulated into anything but front line platforms and how much is aimed at keeping Trump and co happy while they drag out any reality in spending inherently in those promises. Trump got his first big political whacking last night so the tendency to want to drag matters for some time yet, will no doubt get some impetus.
Sadly you are right, it seems the uncress in defence spending is just spin as other things are added to budget so give with one hand , deny taking with the other. All warm words to make look like some thing is being done to address the shambolic state of the Army when really nothing has changed if any thing its got worse with not orders and 16 months nothing. Sad, sad days for the Army
Rather waste 60 billion plus on saving the planet when rudimentary understanding is cooling and warming its a natural cycle rather than spending on deterrence/defence. When that millisecond comes as we are vaporised we will have the satisfaction of knowing we saved the planet.OR NOT.
Seems the Germans are realising that working with the U.K. is much easier than with the French
A lesson they once learned that they really should have stuck to. Sadly time has dimmed the memory for them and they took Brexit as a personal insult clearly, which has backfired for them immeasurably, talk about shooting yourself in both feet. They clearly thought that the Franco German project would be the only game in town instead of presently being only an obscure suburban out of town hellhole for them. Delusional fools clearly don’t just reside in Britain.
I think Germany is losing its guilt complex over WW2 – good thing too. The country is ‘moving on’ and realising it doesn’t need to play second fiddle to the French forever.
I agree that Germany is taking a more assertive stance, for the better. But they never played second fiddle to France. Never. If it was, it happened with USA.
France, via Macron, has collaborated successfully with UK and had poor results with Germany. It seems in the word of some that we are the bad guys in cooperation. Perhaps, but perhaps not. When there is a shared will, like in MBDA, we are very successfull, with UK, Italy and Germany.
Hi Math, times change and personalites change. I shouldn’t generalise; better to remember success: for the UK, Concorde, Jaguar and SCALP with France. Tornado with Germany, Italy and Spain. French vision and drive produced Eurocopter and Airbus – to have matched Boeing is no small thing. 👏
Working with the germans is the personification of red tape. The French get things done albeit alone
Really ? The Australians backed out of the French submarine contract because nothing had been delivered after 6 years not even the first cut of steel. Their own Suffren submarine programme is over 7 years late which each follow on of the class is suffering in turn . The CdG carrier soon goes out of service for another 2 years leaving them with no capability . The only thing the French are good at is convincing people they have more capability than they do .
remind me what AUKUS has delivered? promises…nothing else. also the CDG is to be decommisionned in 2038, i mean these are all elements you can find on google quite easily. You as a true british man probably suffer from what i think they call the inferiority complex, quite prevalent when the British talk about the French lol
What did Azincourt say that was incorrect?
Was it that:
No steel had been cut on Aussie submarine contract;
Or that the Suffren programme has been delayed by 7 years;
Or that the French carrier is going into refit in a couple of years and won’t be available?
The Suffren contract was clearly an utter mess. The most positive thing you can say from a French perspective was that it was very badly handled by both sides.
For their part, the French side certainly over-promised a lot at the start but weren’t that minded to actually deliver something without lots and lots of additional contractual wrangling (to over their backsides).
AUKUS may or may not live up to initial expectations but if you were Australia you’d now pick South Korea or Japan to build their submarines over the French. At least they have a proven track record of recovery.
Not really correct, the delays were contained on the program and milestones were respected. As with cooperation with Brazil, Malaisie, Indonesia, Pakistan and Chile. Press attacks could not be denied for contractual reasons. So Murdoch played it’s anti French storry, because he hates France, as he did play the Brexit story in UK to weaken you.
But anyway, this still is a key weakness in UK sovereignty that you have to endure, so that the believe of the Commonwealth stays alive. I can live with this. You can as well, but pay it a tremendous price. And one cannot fight the dream of grandor that is embeded in UK psyche. It is futile and I love a UK dreaming big. Carrefull though, this dream is beyond current UK strength in the current geopolitical landscape. The former parts of the crown are way too powerfull and under Oncle Sam’s control that you can exert only a minor influence. In France, we acknowledge this reality and try to deal with it. Macron removed most of our military presence in Africa. We focus on Europe and France now.
Who’s talking about decommissioning?. What are you on about ? I said the CdG is soon scheduled to go out of service for another two years having her nuclear fuel renewed .This is because France uses non enriched uranium in its reactors as opposed to the US for its carriers and submarines and the UK for their submarines that have a much longer shelf life . The effect of this will be that by the time CdG reaches its projected out of service date it will have spent over 20% of its operational life in dry dock . Each time leaving no carrier capability and extensive work up to return the ship to FOC .Read the posts before you start throwing insults around.
the USS Nimitz underwent a refit period of 3 years, it’s not only refueling, the non nuclear carriers have a shorter dry dock time by design, the Gerald ford is also expected to spend 20% of its time in drydock due to its design but we are projected to have many of those so there is a steady rotation
Slightly different when you have exactly one carrier, though.
What’s the Nimitz got to do with this ?It went through an extended refit in a life extension programme being the first of the class . Nimitz is a nuclear carrier .
I was talking about the French and their unpreliability as a coalition partner and everything I said , as others have pointed out , is correct .
We have paid a heafty price to remain independant. And we will continue to do so. This has advantages that are undeniable. Can we the French do more, yes. Are we going to do more, certainly. At least, this way UK has another that phone number to call when Oncle Sam is busy or away for coffee. Just keep this in mind. Are we French less powerfull than USA, yes, since it is what you want to ear. Can we destroy any ennemy on earth, yes, but just one of them. Would we be detroyed in return, absolutely. Can we do something intermediate, yes. Is it great to cooperate with UK, certainly. Are we talking on equal footing with you, yes. Do we consider UK as a key partner, yes. I am a bit sad of the tone of your message. We are allies and friends. UK people are welcom in France and I feel the same every time I cross the channel. But we are proud, rightfully so, we have self estime. It is pointless to play this kind of games.
And We have one last thing in common: your country and mine are broke and don’t make enough babies. Let’s start with basic things, make babies, drill mines and reduce debts. We will all be way better after that.
Everyone is independent . We’re all sovereign nations . What grates with me , knowing the French well , is this ridiculous notion they hold that they are the only ones who are. How do you know my country is broke ? You don’t know what it is !! You’re making an assumption . The mother of all f*** ups .
However , I wouldn’t lecture the British on Brexit the Commonwealth or anything else that’s nothing to do with France if I were you . Especially in half french , half english gibberish littered with spelling mistakes and grammatical errors . They don’t take kindly to that . One would have thought that history would have taught you that.
Your country has a heavy burden on debts, mine as well, but we pay half your amount of interest per year.
It would not have been the case without Brexit, but as you righfully say it is a sovereign choice. Promoted by foreign interests, yes, but sovereign. Have a nice day!
I repeat , again for those that don’t read posts before sounding off . You have no idea what my country is . You’re making an assumption and under estimating the British people who take no notice of what foreign interests have to say when their own sovereignty is concerned.
Bonne journée.
Do you have an inferiority complex and are just projecting it on someone who disagrees with you?
The answer is no to both but it’s got nothing to do with you so get lost .
It’s not really the French government all the time, it’s Eric Trappier.
A European Tomahawk?
I hope a Ballistic Missile on a TEL that can disperse, and operated by the Royal Artillery in their own Regiment.
I forget, but whichever one operated Lance in BAOR seems apt.
Im not sure the 2000km+ weapon will be a ballistic missile, that’s a hard ask to build a scratch medium range ballistic missile especially when you’ve not even got expertise in tactical and short range ballistic missiles..
Remember a Meduim range ballistic missile is essentially a multi stage sub orbital booster with an atmospheric re-entry vehicle to protect the warhead. That’s hard yards and expensive.
I think we can see where HMG wants to go with sovereign ballistic missile capability and project nightfall is the first realistic step with a 600km short range missile as a first step as that is a single stage booster that does not leave the atmosphere.
I think realistically this will be a land based cruise missile and I suspect it will be build with the possibility of sticking an Astraea A21 in the nose to really give Russia pause for thought.
I have a feeling (unsubstantiated) that the reason the MoD wants to get into the ballistic missile game is with an eye towards being able to replace Trident, should such an event come to pass.
Son of Black Knight..
They are making baby steps with Nightfall at 600km. Going for medium range at 2000km and then a Trident replacement would make a lot of sense, even though I agree with Jonathan that this is realistically more likely to be a large cruise missile than ballistic.
We are an island nation, having strategic artillery should be part of the plan and a large solid rocket manufacturer is a key industry for hypersonics as well. None of the Scottish rocket companies use solid rockets. Cambridge Aerospace want to make their own but are very small at the moment, Roxel are happy in their missile niche, I think we’d need a new startup to make much progress which is I hope why the MoD are using Nightfall to sound for potential suppliers.
PS CA have the best website ever 😉
Roxel, who are now part of MBDA have experience of designing and building solid rocket motors. Roxel are a joint French and UK Company. The UK part was the Royal Ordinance Factory, bought by BAe, that has a design and manufacturing centre in the Midlands along with a test facility. I suspect Roxel will be heavily involved with this project.
Daniele, Lance was operated by 50 Missile Regiment RA. Formed in the late 1950s, based in Menden, BAOR,
the unit was equipped with 8-inch howitzers, Honest John, and then from 1976, equipped with the MGM-52 tac nuke/conventional Lance SSM.
Regt was disbanded and weapons retired in 1993).
Thanks Graham.
Yes, it’s a ground launched longer range version of tomahawk probably borrowing very heavily from FC/ASW as it’s MBDA driving the design.
That’s confirmed, is it Jim?
I’d not seen that, unless I’m getting my missile programs mixed up, there are a few knocking about.
I think there are things happening now.. it’s a bit stealth like but suddenly the number of challenger 2s officially on the books has moved from 216 to 288, there has to be a reason for that one hopes.
Clearly they checked under the mattress.
On the book, you mean srap, pulled apart. No new one in service just doctor figures and smoke and mirrors. That’s the MOD for you these days empty statements with no real meaning but meant look like things are better thsn they are?. Or as I call it out and out misinformation and lies
We always had those extra Challengers sat around, we have countless pieces of kit sat in storage hangars long after they were no longer on the books. There are CVRT’s, Hawks, Tornados, Harriers, Warriors, 432’s, Gazelles and much more sat in MoD storage in moderate condition being used for spares and static training on the daily – and possibly if ever needed in a really awful situation reactivation. Much of what Ukraine has had off of us has come from these pools (think Sea King, CVRT’s and the hard points we stuck into the MiGs for some quick examples). The MoD very rarely puts information up on what is actually in storage but occasionally you get something like this that gives us an insight into it.
TLDR when challenger numbers started being reduced the MoD didn’t just bury them or scrap them (that costs money), they took the worst condition units and stuck them in a hangers and since then they have been used for training personnel and pinching bits when something breaks on an operational unit. The army still only has 200 odd combat capable units to deploy.
For me the question is why.. we all know the had 60 odd off the books challenger 2s in storage but why are they now “on the book”.. I would say it’s political.. but it would be a bit silly because now the move to challenger 3 is very publicly moving from 288 tanks to 154.. that’s a bad message.. so why ? If I was cutting my MBT force to 154 I would be keeping to present official figures at 212.. less of perceived cut. I’m starting to wonder if they are on the books because they are developing plans on how they convert more challenger 2 to 3… the reality is it does not matter what condition your challenger 2 is in it will just cost more to convert the more bits it’s had ripped out.
Look at Russia. They had high number of old tanks that they refurbished when war started. UK and France are in the same situation. These old tanks would take a year or more to get back into service, still faster than brand new tanks.
I do think one of the bits of learning people have sort of failed to take onboard is that concept of reactivation actually works.. because the true peer war is all about grinding down to strategic exhaustion… the west has always been in love with new stuff and the latest toy.. but actually the side that wins in a peer war is the one that can simply keep any toys available and if your industrial capacity cannot build loads having a massive reserve is significant.. imagine how happy Ukraine would have been with 900 reactivated chieftain tanks.
Oh yes! We have 200 Leclerc tanks and 200 in reserve. I’m happy we do!
For me, a cynical attempt to increase mass on paper by including 72 stored and knackered Ch2 which have probably been cannibalised repeatedly in the overall total.
As why not include them in ones equipment figures in previous years otherwise?
We see the same “phenomenon” in the official RAF Squadron list. All through the Cold War and decades after numbered flying Sqns were on the list, and the many more minor supporting units in the RAF were not.
I know, I’ve spent 35 years listing and cataloguing them!
Now….hey presto! We have over 100 Squadrons! Giving supporting orgs Sqn number plates of long lost famous Sqn number plates whose aircraft were cut over 30 years of defence cuts doesnt fool anyone except the layman who picks up the RAF yearbook from WHSmiths.
One might say to counter that they can choose to name whatever they like, and that is true. But look at the underlying reasons, it’s not just about keeping famous Sqns alive.
I am sort of hoping that it means they have got all those sold hulls out of storage and started assessments on conversion to challenger 3.. for me one of the low hanging fruit would be getting 250+ challenger threes.. because even the most challenging rebuild is going to come well under the cost of an all up new MBT.
I would agree normally on the cynical move to increase mass on paper.. but government has announced its cutting the MBT force from 212 to 154.. bringing the official number back up for a couple of years just highlights your now cutting the force from 288 to 154… from a political messaging point of view to the public that’s a bad message.. so I don’t see the polical spin value to be honest.. if they were not moving to challenger 3 and cuttting to 154 it’s a good spin move… I’m therefore moving up my % dial on an increased challenger 3 conversion number.. when you add that to the fact they are keeping 3 regiments of MBTs.. I actually think it’s “likely” ( risk manager for over 50% chance of occurring) we will see a bigger number of challenger 3s.
154? The figure of Ch3 was 148.
Whoops.That is what happens when you type, eat your lunch and watch the news at the same time… 😂😵💫
Damn it Jonathan. There I was for a moment wondering if I’d missed HMGs latest increase in lethality announcement.
Sorry no, just me having an over 50s brain fart 😂😂😂🤯
Generally I agree with you that this is massive book cookery, on the other hand it’s wonderful to keep storied regiments, warships and squadrons and their achievements alive in this way. Part of the reason for poor support of the Forces today is that kids aren’t taught in school about how this regiment or that did what when. (Not p.c. to talk about killing or be proud of this nation’s accomplishments, you see.). And the Army being what it is today, in theory you could give every infantry COMPANY of the Army today a Regimental association.
Anyhow, of course the best would be to publish an objective measure of active deployable shootable units, besides the cap badges. But that’d be too sensible for HMG and deary me where would Britain be if we can have nice things…?
Fair points Matt.
I agree,
Jonathan, those ‘newly discovered’ 75 x CR2s always were at Ashchurch on the Inactive List so not declared. Of course they will have been mostly or totally cannibalised for spares over the years. Very disingenuous of HMG to now count them as assets.
Indeed but I’m not sure why they have done it..l as politically it’s a bad move.. they now publicly look like they are cutting from 288 to 148.. instead of just a cut from 212.
Which should now mean that potentially more CR2s can be upgraded to CR3 standard. Tank needs a C-UAS/RWS on it finish it off.
Has it not been over a year since the launch of the competition for Brakestop?
This isn’t Brakestop, it’s a more complex joint programme with Germany.
Yeh, I know. This article just triggered my memory and I wondered where we were with Brakestop. I suppose we might find out with the defence industry plan
Jonathan, those ‘newly discovered’ 75 x CR2s always were at Ashchurch on the Inactive List so not declared. Of course they will have been mostly or totally cannibalised for spares over the years. Very disingenuous of HMG to now count them as assets.
Let’s hope they don’t speed it up as much as they sped up the Type 26 Frigates was when they cancelled the 7th and 8th Type 45s in 2008; we might not have the personnel ready trained to accept these missiles into service in 2044.
If they can accelerate this program.so we have more and bigger things to throw “over the fence”, how about accelerating our means to defend against similar stuff coming back our way…surely the biggest elephant in the room or, more correctly, in the front garden!? Where’s GBAD at and increased Shorad, mobile and fixed for ports, bases, infrastructure etc? Will the T91 concept explore barge/coastal CAMM for AD? If you can shoot off fireworks from barges why not CAMM (containerised/ palletised) or other cheaper interceptors?
Back to these missiles, if like the TLAM Typhon they must be able to have anti ship and area denial uses? 2000km is a fair distance. And begs another question, will these also go on ships and fit into the mk41s?
There is a slim chance that it will fit in a Mk41. If this is a ballistic missile, probably not, as the 2000km range would put it in the medium range category. France are looking in to this with the missile balistique terrestre (MBT) being developed by the Ariane Group. Where the in-service date is expected to be around 2030. However , the models shown at the Paris Air Show, make it too large for the strike length Mk41, where the missile model is over 8m long and about 0.8m in diameter. Looking at the range of medium ballistic missiles currently available, they are mostly longer and wider in diameter than the MBT. So I’d say the Mk41 will be too small to meet the size requirements for a medium range ballistic missile.
The Mk41 can hold a cannister 6.7m long by 0.64m wide, though the cell itself is 7.7m long. Tomahawk with a booster is 6.25m long and has a diameter of 0.52m. The Block V version is said to have a range of over 1000 miles (1610km). Both the UK and Germany have more experience with cruise missiles than ballistic missiles. It is probably the easier option to design and build, i.e. a long range, subsonic, stealthy cruise missile and can still fit in the strike length Mk41.
However, the image above shows a ballistic missile. The USN Zumwalt class use Mk41, but also the newer Mk57, mounted along the sides of the ship. The Mk57 can hold a container 7.18m long and 0.71m wide. Which isn’t a massive improvement over the Mk41. Its main benefit over the Mk41 is that the exhaust gas management system can accommodate new missile designs having up to 45 percent greater rocket motor mass flow rate than that of Mk 41 can cope with. Meaning missiles with more energetic propellent and more powerful rocket motors can be used. The USN are planning to fit the Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS), which is a hypersonic boost glide missile, with a range from 500km to 5000km. However, it is about 10m long and has a diameter of 0.87m. Which is too big for both the Mk41 and Mk57. To solve this problem, the ship’s two advanced gun systems (AGSs) are being removed and replaced with a version of the advanced payload module (APM), as used on the Virginia class SSNs. The tubes of these are much bigger than the Mk57 at 2.210m in diameter, that can be further subdivided to hold 7 TLAM. The depth of the tube for the Virginia class is nearly the full depth of the boat.
I think this gives you an idea of the problem of trying to fit medium range ballistic missiles to a ship. They’re going to be over 8m long and will take up a lot of the ship’s volume. But never say never!