The UK's 'missile of the future' for its F-35s has been delayed again
The UK's SPEAR 3 air-to-surface cruise missile is facing further delays.
The UK MOD called the missile, designed for F-35B Lightnings, the "cruise missile of the future."
But its expected timeline for in-service capability has been pushed to the early 2030s.
The UK's new missile, which its defense ministry has called the "cruise missile of the future," has been further delayed.
The SPEAR 3 air-to-surface cruise missile is intended for use by F-35B Lightnings in both the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy. Its manufacturer, European multinational MBDA, says it will be the "primary air launched, precision effects, surface attack weapon" of the RAF.
But the missile's expected timeline for in-service capability has now been pushed back to the early 2030s, Maria Eagle, the UK's minister of state for defense procurement and industry, said.
In response to an opposition lawmaker, Eagle said the weapon program was "undergoing re-baselining," which means its progress is being reconsidered.
She said that a Review Note was expected toward the end of 2025, and "until that is approved, dates are considered draft and of low confidence."
"The estimated current timeline for in-service capability is expected to be early 2030s," she added.
This represents another in a series of delays for the project. The missiles were once expected to be integrated by 2025, which was then pushed back to the last quarter of 2028.
The SPEAR 3 missile was successfully launched from an aircraft for the first time last year, the RAF said. It was launched by a Eurofighter Typhon jet in a test over Sweden.
The RAF described the SPEAR missile as "a next generation turbojet-powered miniature cruise missile," to be used by both Royal Air Force and Royal Navy pilots.
It said each F-35B will be able to carry up to eight SPEAR missiles at a time.
The UK chose to develop its own cruise missile with MBDA after considering purchasing an available model from US defense company Raytheon.
The RAF said the missiles can hit targets at a distance of 62 miles, and MBDA said they will be effective against naval vessels, main battle tanks, ballistic missile launchers, and fast-moving vehicles, among other targets.
The missile also has a semi-active laser mode, which allows operators to designate a target using a laser, which the missile's seeker then follows.
Gustav Gressel, a missile expert at the National Defence Academy of the Austrian Armed Forces, described the latest SPEAR delay as part of a pattern.
"Aircraft armament in Europe, unfortunately, is a story of delays and cost overruns," he told Business Insider.
The UK has purchased 48 F-35Bs, made by Lockheed Martin, for use by both its air force and navy, though not all have been delivered. It intends to buy a total of 138 jets, though some reports have suggested that number could be reassessed amid cost concerns.
Some countries have said they are reconsidering their commitment to the F-35, as the US distances itself from longtime allies and amid speculation the US could make the jets ineffective by removing critical support.
But a UK Ministry of Defence spokesperson told Business Insider in March that the UK "maintains the freedom of action to operate the F-35 Lightning at a time and place of our choosing."
The RAF described SPEAR last year as part of a portfolio that supports $8.7 billion of planned investment in the UK weapons industry by the MOD over the next decade.
It said this included Brimstone, CAMM, Sea Viper, Sea Venom, and Storm Shadow.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Europe, we're not leaving. Period.
There are some headlines making the rounds claiming that TechCrunch is 'pulling out of Europe' and shuttering its coverage of European startups. This is flat-out wrong. It misrepresents who we are, what we do, and — most of all — what we believe. The recent changes at TechCrunch are not about retreat. They are about realignment and reinforcement. This new chapter is fueled by our partnership with our sister company, Foundry, which was brought under the same ownership to create a tech media entity with unparalleled global scope. To be clear, Foundry is a powerhouse of international technology journalism. Its portfolio includes established and respected brands like PCWorld, Macworld, CIO, and TechAdvisor, with a vast network of journalists and deep-rooted expertise in local and regional tech ecosystems across Europe and the world. The suggestion that our new ownership believes international coverage is unessential is patently false. The entire purpose of bringing TechCrunch and Foundry together is to create a stronger, more globally focused media platform. Europe is where fintech regulation is rewritten, where quantum startups spin out of Max Planck labs, where climate-tech pilots become the standard for the rest of the planet. In 2024 alone, European founders raised over €40 billion; many of the unicorns we covered last year were born on this continent. If you care about the future of technology, you have to be here. And we are. As we integrate the strengths of both TechCrunch and Foundry, here is our promise to the founders, investors, and readers in Europe and beyond: To the startup community: Keep your tips, term sheets, and tantrums coming. Send them to tips@ or ping our encrypted channels. We'll be listening — louder and more broadly than ever. TechCrunch isn't retreating from Europe. We're doubling down. — Michael Reinstein, Chairman and Publisher Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Lammy is picking a needless fight with America
The alarming revelation that 2024 recorded the highest number of global conflicts since the Second World War should be taken as an incentive to deepen ties with key allies, not fracture them. That would certainly be the response of any government committed to the defence of the realm faced with the depressing statistic that last year saw 61 conflicts taking place in 36 countries. Of these, 11 were defined as full-blown conflicts – those that claimed at least 1,000 battlefield deaths – and included the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza, as well as other less-publicised violent eruptions in Sudan, Syria, Nigeria and Ethiopia. At a time when Sir Keir Starmer is attempting to promote his national security credentials, the rising tide of conflict detailed in a report by Sweden's Uppsala University should prompt his Government to strengthen ties with key allies such as the US and Israel. Instead, by opting to target two members of the Israeli government with sanctions, Starmer has shown that he is more interested in virtue-signalling than common sense. National security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich may come from the ulta-nationalist fringe of Israeli politics, but they remain important members of Israel's democratically elected government, which is one of the UK's closest allies in the Middle East. Moreover, Israel, just like Ukraine, finds itself in the vanguard of the West's deepening confrontation with two of the most potent threats it faces, in the form of Vladimir Putin's Russia and Iranian-sponsored Islamist terrorism. The UK's support for Ukraine, together with its European allies, is predicated on the understanding that Western security would be fatally compromised if Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine were to succeed. Similarly, the UK's declaration of support for Israel in the wake of the October 7 attacks in 2023 was based on the tacit acknowledgement that it was in the West's interests that Iran's backing for Hamas terrorists must not be allowed to go unchallenged, especially given the ayatollahs' fixation with developing nuclear weapons. The Labour Government's decision, therefore, to single out two prominent members of the Israeli government for public censure not only threatens to undermine relations with a key regional ally. It runs the risk of jeopardising our own national security, especially if the Israelis conclude it is no longer in their interests to share vital intelligence with the UK. Israeli foreign minister Gideon Saar has already announced the Israeli cabinet will meet next week to respond to what he called an 'unacceptable decision'. The British Government's decision to pick on the two politicians is hardly surprising given its previous lamentable track record of targeting Israel, with Foreign Secretary David Lammy declaring his support for the International Criminal Court and its highly politicised move to prosecute Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes. Yet, by siding with other self-righteous, but wholly naive, administrations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Norway, to provoke an entirely avoidable diplomatic row with Israel, Starmer and Co have placed themselves firmly on the wrong side of history. Apart from alienating Israel, the move also risks causing a rift with the US, another key ally. America's secretary of state Marco Rubio was particularly critical of the measures imposed against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for 'inciting violence against the Palestinian people'. The sanctions 'do not advance US-led efforts to achieve a ceasefire, bring all hostages home and end the war,' he said, urging the UK 'not to forget who the real enemy is'. Hitting two controversial Israeli politicians with sanctions might play to Labour's vociferously anti-Israel supporters, but it could prove to be a self-defeating move in terms of safeguarding our own long-term interests. In terms of the likely impact it will have on Israeli policy, the sanctions will be about as effective as Greta Thunberg's equally puerile attempt this week to break Israel's Gaza blockade with her Freedom Flotilla. At the same time they run the risk of sending a signal to Iran and other hostile regimes that the UK is more interested in embarrassing its allies than confronting its enemies. It is certainly hard to grasp the logic of why, when Western powers like the UK are preparing to confront Iran over its nuclear programme, they should choose this moment to pick a fight with Israel, Tehran's sworn enemy. The need to impose fresh sanctions against Iran was very much in evidence at this week's meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, when Rafael Grossi, the body's director general, confirmed three new previously undeclared nuclear sites had been identified in Iran that could be used for developing nuclear weapons. The UK is among a number of European powers that have responded by pressing for the reimposition of sanctions against Tehran. But the ayatollahs are unlikely to change course on their nuclear ambitions if they believe they share a common interest with Britain and its allies in targeting the Israelis. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Rachel Reeves may have just killed Nato
There will be a moment, some time in the next few years when the US will genuinely consider leaving Nato. And if it does, we should not be surprised. It wasn't as if they didn't warn the rest of us. About the only thing Donald Trump and Barack Obama ever agreed on was that Europe must make a much bigger financial contribution to Nato. In 2014 at the Cardiff Summit, the Treasury furiously resisted the demands. All sorts of tricks were pulled and definitions were stretched to get the UK to 2 per cent of GDP. The Americans, in their polite way, asked nicely. They've been asking ever since. Because as they command all Allied forces in Nato they knew the truth about the state of everyone's forces. While public scrutiny was kept at bay using secrecy and 'operational reasons', SACEUR – Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the military boss of Nato and always an American – grew increasingly concerned as Russia got more and more aggressive. And still European capitals, including London, carried on cutting. Not until 2019 and Boris Johnson did the Ministry of Defence turn the corner with real money and real reform. Previous Conservative and Labour governments had used the Red Arrows and Trooping the Colour to pretend that all was well. But Ukraine found us out. Nato and the international community needed to act: and as we examined our inventory ministers could see just how weak we had become. I remember when we debated gifting the AS90 155mm long range artillery to Ukraine I was informed that while we had 73 guns on the books only 19 worked! Or when I tried to increase the number of tanks to be upgraded to Challenger 3s I was told it was impossible because so many of our tanks had already been stripped of parts to keep others running. You might say that I should have known all that detail on day one. But you'd be surprised how well the services can hide bad news when they want to. Last week we witnessed Labour's first defence review for more than 20 years. It was heralded by re‑announcing many Conservative procurements. As a review it was weak: clearly budget-led not threat led. The big decisions had been made beforehand, and without 3 per cent by 2030 the review would clearly be hollow at birth, as it was. It was also an insult to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the equivalent of sticking two fingers up to the White House. Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Rather than making tough decisions on public spending priorities, Rachel Reeves chose to use Treasury tricks to deceive us all. The Government has folded in intelligence spending, Ukraine spending and even Foreign Office money to the notional 'defence' figure. The result is that core defence spending will not even be 2.5 per cent as promised: not even close. There was no path to 3 per cent either. It was just a con all along. If John Healey spent as much time battling the Treasury as he did repeating my government's plans or deceiving the public with spin then he might have had some success. But it is clear he is Labour first and UK defence second. How dare this Government avoid the solemn duty to defend our shores and properly equip the men and women of the armed forces. Labour was the government that sent our troops to war in Snatch Land Rovers and they are destined to repeat that betrayal. Next week Donald Trump will arrive in Holland for the Nato summit. He will bring with him a message that we must all spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on actual defence, not counting spies or diplomats. The Donald will not be bought off with Treasury tricks. I was in Washington last week and some very senior people in the White House and the Pentagon genuinely believe Trump may leave Nato in two years. They are serious. So we need to either demonstrate we are pulling our weight or we need to compensate for the 70 per cent loss to Nato capability if the US leaves. Based on Rachel Reeves's efforts we will do neither. History may point to this as the moment when the UK surrendered its place in Nato and triggered its demise. And all the while, Putin and Xi will be licking their lips. Waiting for their moment. For that little bit of Estonia or Finland. The best Donald Trump can do next week is say that Nato is a club with a subscription. No money should mean no entry. Ben Wallace served as Secretary of State for Defence from 2019 to 2023. He is a former British Army officer Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.