The new UK Government has reiterated its stance on the use of Storm Shadow missiles by Ukrainian armed forces, maintaining long-standing policy on the matter.
This was confirmed in a recent written parliamentary question and answer session.
This statement was made in response to a parliamentary question from James Cartlidge, the Conservative MP for South Suffolk, concerning the UK’s policy on the use of Storm Shadow missiles by Ukraine.
Luke Pollard, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, confirmed the UK’s unchanged position, stating, “There has been no change in the UK’s position on Storm Shadow. I am sure that the hon. Member will understand that I will not go into further detail.”
Pollard also spoke of the UK’s ongoing support for Ukraine, noting, “We continue to provide military aid to support Ukraine’s clear right of self-defence against Russia’s illegal attacks in accordance with international humanitarian law. We are clear that equipment provided by the UK is intended for the defence of Ukraine.”
This clarification comes in the context of recent remarks by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who indicated that Ukraine has been permitted to use British Storm Shadow missiles to strike military targets within Russia.
This development was acknowledged by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who expressed gratitude to the UK during the NATO summit in Washington.
Zelensky wrote on X, “This morning, I learned about the permission to use Storm Shadow missiles against military targets in Russian territory. Today, we had the opportunity to discuss the practical implementation of this decision.”
Starmer highlighted that the use of these missiles must comply with international humanitarian law, and while they are provided for defensive purposes, it is ultimately up to Ukraine to determine their deployment.
He stated, “Storm Shadows are to be used ‘for defensive purposes’. But it is for Ukraine to decide how to deploy it for those defensive purposes.”
I would really like to see us develop a rapid dragon style launcher for Storm Shadow to be launched from C17 and A400M. While the missile is older and will be replaced in front line service by the FC/ASW, it still offers a highly effective capability to be used as a deterrent against Russian cruise missiles being used against the UK or tactical nuclear weapons being used against other states. We really need to develop a capability either by land or by sea to launch several hundred cruise missiles at an enemy simultaneously and this would seem like a really… Read more »
I assume this is already possible since we also fly C17’s, I’m sure Atlas could be converted to suit.
Isn’t that one of the variants under development as part of FCASW and likely to be in service by 2028?
For now, we either air launch Storm Shadow ( range @340 miles)or sub launch Tomahawk ( range 800 miles?).
The Tomahawk nuclear tipped version had a range of 1500 miles- London to Moscow. A land launched missile with that sort of range would be a powerful deterrent and wouldn’t tie up our limited number of Typhoons or Astutes.
Latest news is we are developing a 2000 mile range land launched cruise missile with Germany to be based in Germany. But I much rather have an air launched missile fired from a transport aircraft.
I don’t want to have to rely on German permission to fire our land based missile and an air launched solution is much more flexible.
Given how bad the Russian air defence is, 340 mile range should be plenty however I have no doubt after SPEAR IV upgrade stomshadow can travel much further.
There are many good reasons why we don’t use transport aircraft to fire cruise missiles. Survivability being one.
There are no good reason why we don’t do it, the US DoD has spent money developing such a capability and its been seen as a key enabler by several think tanks in a war with China.
Do you know more than the US DoD?
Whatever might be on the drawing boards. No dedicated transport aircraft is firing cruise missiles. Otherwise, what’s the point of aircraft like the B21? I Can guarantee you. You won’t be seeing StormShadows launched out the back of a C17 or A400 anytime soon.
“what’s the point of aircraft like the B21?”
Completely different mission. The B-21 is a penetrating aircraft and a leg of the US’s nuclear triad and that is it’s primary mission. The US will be very careful about how much wear and tear they put on those prized assets compared to the literal hundreds of C-17. The C-17 on the other hand will likely be used for example in a Taiwan invasion scenario where they will be launching lrasm by the dozens at a time at the PLAN fleet from hundreds of miles away.
At a projected cost of at least $700Mn/copy, guarantee B-21 will be tasked judiciously. Probably best to characterize B-21s as the silver bullets intended to slay the undead monsters. BUFFs will carry the vast majority of the air-tasking load.
Undoubtedly BUFFs but the US military seem very very high on the rapid dragon concept. The idea that any transport aircraft could potentially unleash dozens of missiles significantly complicates an adversary isr and targeting priorities. They not only have to dedicate considerable resources to keep track of the fighters and bombers, but now have to start tracking even solitary transport flights that could be carrying cans of beans or dozens of armed JASSM-ER.
Exactly, B21 is more likely to be the forward deployed eyes are ears relaying targeting data than the platform lobbing missiles.
No full time cargo planes are devoted to it, it’s intended as a day 1 surge capability to take out a large number of fixed targets and overwhelm an enemy. The USA is already training with it in NATO exercises.
Hi RB
I think the enormous range of the missiles being fired mitigates the survivability concerns.
Eggs
Basket
All
One
Being another.
Or a C17 is not very stealthy….
Lots of reasons!
To be fair, I don’t think they have to be stealthy, it’s not like they have to be over the target is it ? Jim has a very valid point in that a C17 can carry and launch a lot of “standoff” weapons from a safe distance. The possibility that the new land based weapon could have a 2000 mile range makes this option even more believable.
They could be circling above Brize Norton and still hit Moscow.
At which point why bother with air launch?
You can launch more from a warship or ground launchers?
Why ? well that’s a question best answered by the availability of RN Ships and and land based assets. A single C17 could launch a fair few and rather less expensively if you actually think about it.
The C17 fleet is too small and overworked.
They will need to be remanufactured to keep going.
I wonder if there’s any appetite to reopen the C17 production line?
There might be given the way things are going.
It is tried and tested so can be produced at a known cost and risk.
Yes, in a sense, all that was from of old, may become new. GLCM II and Pershing III, anyone? (No definitive information, simply idle speculation re NATO’s future.)
Having got rid of the Hercs, I think our C17 and Atlas are too busy trying to fulfill the multitude of tasks placed on them than carry out offensive missions.
Back in the day, this sort of thing was considered for the Air Staffs FOAS requirement.
That required the missile dropped off the rear ramp I recall.
Is it possible to use Voyager with the missile under the wings?
At least the aircraft is flying in a holding, racetrack pattern in the rear.
I remember reading that our A330 has a hard point under the wing. Which is used for transporting a spare engine. I believe it only has the one though.
Ok thanks mate.
The ranges from which modern cruise missiles are fired basically eliminates the threat from any ground based SAM systems. The only threat these transport based missile truck face is from opposing fighter aircraft and they would have to get by western fighters escorting these C-17 type aircraft. I suspect if given the choice, an opposing pilot would rather eat his shoe than go up against western fighter escorts.
Maybe you need to think about the capability to deploy these weapons from great distances, take a look at what Jim was talking about when he mentioned “Rapid dragon style launcher” it’s a great way to launch whilst staying out of harm.
It is possible, sure. I think our transport assets are too few to use them for such a role. Just have a GLCM that can disperse and hide in the countryside.
Well yes, that’s certainly another option but I was just commenting on Jim’s comment and Roberts rather simple reply. I’d love to see the C17 and Atlas inventory doubled at least, especially since the Hercs have been dumped. Jim’s point makes a lot of sense to be honest.
It’s been reported that the RAF have asked for another 6 A400.
I’d never describe any of Roberts comments as simple myself, knowing his aviation back ground. 👍
Daniele- this new has made my day- finger crossed !
Sorry but it was a rather simple dismissal on the grounds that a transport needs to be survivable, all I did was offer a realistic answer. after all the USAF think is a good idea.
The additional 6 A400s were supposed to be part of the deal of getting rid of the Hercules.
We would only be using them for a day. 1 c17 could carry 36 storm shadows and an A400M probably 30. At that rate we fire our entire supply of storm shadow in a day or two.
Yes, true. An early blitz.
While Rapid Dragon is a thing. It hasn’t been used operationally. Rules of engagement would limit the use of such systems unless total air superiority has been achieved. Despite the range of the munitions used, a transport aircraft is not a good way to deliver offensive strike weapons. Otherwise, we might as well have scores of 737s instead of Strike Eagles or Typhoons. They could have a use, but we won’t see anything in RAF service anytime soon. Transport aircraft are designed for cargo and people. Drones will deliver long range strike capability in the future. Not a A400.
If you can fly an AWCS and tankers with in 200 miles of hostile forces why not a transport aircraft with 300 or 400 miles.
Morning Robert, I think this suggestion of Jim’s is perfectly doable and the USAF think so too, just like they use Hercs as gunships in warzones.
737’s don’t have rear ramps to launch the Rapid Dragon delivery systems, neither do they have a bomb bay. I think you should take a look at this system, it’s actually rather interesting.
The USAF did some interesting concept work during the cold war before pulling the B1 project out of storage. Looking at 747s as Cruise Missile Carrier Aircraft, carrying a revolving carriage of cruise missiles to be fired from standoff range. Some interesting analysis, particularly with regards to finance and project management here (The US Military’s Secret Plan to Turn Boeing 747s Into Arsenal Ships – 19FortyFive) Whilst it never went anywhere at the time, there are some merits depending on the circumstances. Particularly in a total war environment. I don’t think it is a huge leap to consider alternative, cheaper… Read more »
You had better tell the USAF then because they never got you memo.
Rapid Dragon is fairly advanced now.
Steve becomes Sausage becomes Stephanie??? Those are some changes!
Originally he/she/sausage was called X, then Steve Taylor, then Steve, then Sausage, then Stephanie. Interestingly “X” was on NL at the same time, then he changed to The whale island zoo keeper, then to whale island zoo keeper.😃
You sleuth! I only had a brief peruse!
It’s been used on exercise several times, it’s not been used operationally because world war 3 hasn’t started.
Or we have the independent nuclear deterrent which is the best deterrent money can buy.
And how does our independent nuclear deterrent prevent Russia from using a tactical nuclear weapon against Poland or Germany under a Trump administration?
Japan, Australia, Taiwan are all investing in large scale cruise missile delivery as a deterrent against nuclear weapons.
Europe is now doing the same largely on the worry that the US won’t respond.
Actually, am an advocate of an “all of the above” strategy. Certainly reasonable for ENATO to develop a massive precision conventional strike capability. Equally important, an independent, credible tactical nuclear response capability should be developed, to provide a continuum of options. (Dual authorization, free-fall B-61s may lose credibility in the foreseeable future.) All ENATO should participate in the conventional system(s) development; however,.there are only two logical candidates to develop the nuclear option. Have proposed SLCM-N for SSN-A as the probable lowest cost option for the UK, however, you Brits and the French should be encouraged to explore all viable options,… Read more »
I kind of like our all or nothing approach to nuclear deterrents, I’m not a big believer in tactical nuclear weapons given the effectiveness of conventional precision munitions. We can’t even use cluster munitions so it’s hard to convince an enemy we would use a tactical nuclear weapon. Getting hit with 1000 conventional cruise missiles is a much more credible and useful deterrent in my mind. US policy is now much the same.
Beg to differ re US intentions in terms of tactical nukes. That is the raison d’etre for the SLCM-N programme.
Believe it is beneficial to have as many different arrows as feasible in the quiver.
I’m sure they will have a nuanced response. There was talk of massive cruise missile strike by the USA if the Russian’s used a tactical nuke against Ukraine and no doubt the US would respond with a tactical nuke if a NATO country was hit.
The UK government is a bunch of pussies in this regard.
We would not use a tactical nuke under any circumstances.
Massive conventional cruise missile strike is a more believable deterrent for us to wield.
To be brutally honest, I do wonder why the US insists on using the B61 free fall bomb instead of a stand-off weapon? Is this because they require eyes on the target at release?
Trump isn’t the president. And if he is in January 2025, he won’t be pulling out of NATO. You are oversimplifying how international politics works. The US isn’t going anywhere.
Trump is over simplifying how international politics works. All according to John Bolton who is hardly a liberal lefty.
I’m just taking the man and his movement at their word.
The collective capability of NATO, conventional and nuclear will stop Russia from attacking any NATO nation. Which is why Putin hasn’t made any moves against NATO nation’s. Even though we are arming Ukraine with thousands of western weapons and training.
I agree if the US is in. If the US leaves then ENATO would still win but it is no where near the same deterrent effect and if a future MAGA administration moved to limit the UK’s access to trident missile maintenance then ENATO would be open to nuclear blackmail from Russia.
Ukraine don’t appear to be much from using them
It really only deters a nuclear attack under the MAD doctrine. Britain’s Polaris missiles didn’t deter an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands because they calculated, correctly, that we wouldn’t use nukes. But if we had had the capacity to launch cruise missiles at critical targets in Argentina, I doubt the invasion would have happened.
As much as I agree, things were way different back then. Argentina was not a Nato threat, nor was it a serious GB threat before certain political stances were taken. All I know is that many lives were lost due to political indecisiveness. let’s all hope we don’t have to go through that again.
And we new Argentina wasn’t a nuclear power. And we were never going to nuke Argentina because they invaded the Falklands.
Russia seems to bombard UKR with no restriction of course. UKR must be free to target bases where these strikes origonate & where Russian supplies & reinforcements travel. Bring the Kerch bridge down, the tool of Russian invasion.
I’m sure the bridge is on the target list but it will take an awful lot to bring it down!
To punch holes in the bridge deck is easy and easily repaired.
To hit the bridge legs is much harder.
I suspect you will see an F16 mission using LGBs for that.
Oh come on people. This Bridge is an easy target as proved at least twice. Time is the key here, time will come, even the Orcs know that.
You reckon! Obviously you have not prepared even an ordinary bridge for demolition let alone one that is designed to withstand earthquakes etc🙄
The key is to taking out those RC piers.
If you can do that then all good.
What you really need is a drone to fly in that has a a cut out in it. The cut out closes around the bridge pier and that forms a circular shaped charge.
Ideally you’d do that in two places to each pier and then shock the deck and then lay Mr Newton do his finest work.
No no all you have to do is huff and puff and blow the bridge down😂
SOP
I’d forgotten – I’ll get my son on it – he stamps his foot a treat. Would that help?
Can your son swim cause when he stamps and brings the deck down he will be getting very wet😉
😆
Obviously you missed the last Drone strike and the missile hit then.😏
Is the bridge still standing? Yes it is,to take out a bridge of that size and length it’s going to take more than a missile and drone strike!
centre span is obviously a target but if you don’t take out the span supports and the bridge mountings at each end each span can be fixed!seeing the problems yet? Now the Ukrainians aren’t clearing air defences in Crimea for nothing so hopefully a BIG strike can take place not little pinprick’s that can be repaired quite quickly.
Is their navy still sailing ? no it isn’t, that bridge has been hit twice, it made Putin sit up and take notice, it can be destroyed at any time but I bow to your superior bridge building knowledge.
Whatever mate🙄
Of course Ukraine must do what it must do. But when it comes to Storm Shadow it is British personnel planning the target and British personnel supervising the loading of the aeroplanes. At what point does it become the UK bombing Russia? And then at what point does Russia have the right to retaliate against the UK mainland?
Now where have you seen that nonsense? Please share.
great powers do this all the time. the soviets were manning north vietnamese SAM systems and probably flying some of their migs. putin does not give a damn about his people- not the slightest bit. he uses them to enrich himself and serve his interest- thats it. so he doesn’t lose sleep over any of them getting killed by storm shadow, he at least won’t care to the point where hes not going to risk his safety or wealth by attacking the UK or the US and risking nuclear war. his daughter lives in paris and pretty much everyone in… Read more »
Russian propaganda
Russia had no right to invade UKR. It is illegal from start to finish. In fact they were a guarantor of UKR soveriengty & swore blind they were not going to invade UKR. They’ve already threatened for a long time to strike anyone who assists UKR, even threatened nukes, so I don’t think Rusian sensibilities need concern us much, so long as we use sensible civilised standars of targeting. Unlike Russia who shows no targetting discrimination. Russia tries to operate in the upper margins of grey warfare with the West, hoping to avoid all out war while relentlessly pursuing her… Read more »
What is Russia? We don’t recognise targets in Crimea as being targets in Russia. If Russia acts as though an attack on Crimea is an attack on Russia and decides to bomb the UK because Storm Shadow was used, NATO will pile in. That’s the long and the short of it. There is no “right” about this. Russia had no right to attack Ukraine and no right to annex Crimea either. Russia will do what it will do regardless of such niceties, and will marshal the best publicity reasons it can think of after the fact to claim it had… Read more »
Russia has annexed (illegally)the occupied territories so in essence ukraine is bombing Russia with western weapons
They just took out the ferry’s, the bridge will be next.
i think we have given enough of our Grade 1 kit.
Anyone care to explain this gibberish?
Old tech. Give them to Ukraine. Build loads of new stuff with new tech integrated into whatever we fancy. Stop wasting time with old kit when new kit, in quantity, is needed.
We will eventually design brilliant and complex equipment, FCASW is an example. Whether we can ever afford to produce in very large numbers is very debatable. The UK and much of the Western World (Europe) has in effect ‘structurally disarmed’ e.g. we cannot produce the manpower (boots) and equipment (guns, shells and missiles) in the numbers and timescales that would be required in the event that a peer enemy appeared. the Russians, whilst they may be able to eventually grind UKR down, especially if US support is lost, may not be that enemy, but they will be on the doorstep… Read more »
Properly targeted and used proportionately Storm Shadow can male a massive difference to the outcome of this war regardless of where it is used.
The response from the government is to be welcomed.