logo
Long-Range ‘Deep Precision Strike' Missile To Be Developed By UK And Germany

Long-Range ‘Deep Precision Strike' Missile To Be Developed By UK And Germany

Yahoo16-05-2025
The United Kingdom and Germany have announced that they will team up to produce a 'deep precision strike' weapon with a range of over 2,000 kilometers (1,243 miles). At this point, it's unclear whether a ballistic or cruise missile — or perhaps both types — will be the preferred solution. However, the project reflects growing ambitions among European NATO members to field long-range strike capabilities, faced by a growing Russian threat on the alliance's eastern flank.
The announcement about the new weapon was made yesterday in Berlin by German Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius and his British counterpart John Healey. It came ahead of today's meeting of defense ministers from the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, and Poland in Rome — the so-called European Group of Five (E5).
New heights in
military cooperation – Defence Ministers Healey & Pistorius agreed:
develop 2,000km Deep Precision Strike Capability
joint procurement of Sting Ray torpedoes for P-8 Poseidon aircraft
strategic land systems partnership
continue BOXER co-operation pic.twitter.com/W5U3cJaWAY
— German Embassy London (@GermanEmbassy) May 16, 2025
The plan to develop a deep precision strike weapon is the most ambitious development so far under the bilateral defense cooperation pact, the Trinity House Agreement, that the United Kingdom and Germany signed last October. You can read our full analysis of that partnership here.
According to a statement yesterday from the U.K. Ministry of Defense, the new weapon 'will be among the most advanced systems ever designed by the United Kingdom, to safeguard the British public and reinforce NATO deterrence, while boosting the U.K. and European defense sectors.'
A timeline for the development of the new missile has not been announced, and it's unclear how much the program could cost.
While the United Kingdom and Germany working together on a project of this kind is unprecedented, the capabilities the countries are seeking to develop and field are less surprising.
Russia's extensive use of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles against Ukraine has highlighted a major gap in the inventories of many European NATO countries.
In fact, among European NATO members, only Turkey possesses a conventional ground-launched missile with a range of more than 186 miles — the indigenously developed Bora short-range ballistic missile. Meanwhile, Russia has various ground-launched systems with this kind of performance, able to carry conventional or nuclear warheads. This is before taking into account Russia's air-launched and maritime long-range strike capabilities, which also vastly outmatch their NATO counterparts in Europe.
When the Trinity House Agreement was signed, it was stated that the two countries would work together to 'rapidly develop' new extended deep strike weapons. No more details were provided at the time, but it was stated that the weapon or weapons would be expected to fly further and attack targets with greater precision than the Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missile used by the U.K. Royal Air Force and others. Considering the Storm Shadow is already extremely precise, it's not immediately obvious how such an improvement would be secured.
Previous reports had suggested that the British were looking at developing a strike weapon that would have a range of about 2,000 miles, which would allow it to reach Moscow after a launch from the United Kingdom. The weapon was said to be a deterrent to Russian tactical nuclear missiles, which are being fielded in increasingly advanced and long-reaching forms, including in Kaliningrad, the Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea. However, even the 2,000-kilometer range of the deep precision strike weapon would allow the Russian capital to be struck after launch from almost any location in Germany.
Under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF, signed by the Soviet Union's Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1987, Russia and the United States were prohibited from deploying nuclear or conventionally armed ground-based cruise and ballistic missiles with ranges between 310 and 3,420 miles.
U.S. President Donald Trump formally withdrew from the treaty in 2019, ostensibly over Russia's fielding of a prohibited ground-based cruise missile system, the 9M729 (SSC-8 Screwdriver), something the Kremlin continues to deny it has done. Since then, however, long-range strike capabilities are very much part of the defense landscape in Europe once again.
Last summer, France, Germany, Italy, and Poland launched the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA) — later joined by Sweden and the United Kingdom. Once again, this effort calls for the development of a new capability for 'long-range strikes,' although the type of weapon being pursued is not mentioned. As with the Anglo-German program, it's not specified whether ELSA is looking to develop a cruise or a ballistic missile.
The UK has agreed to take part in the European Long-range Strike Approach (ELSA). Not unexpected given earlier signals from German-UK meetings in July. Helpfully though the UK MOD press release provides a planned in-service entry date 'by the 2030s'.https://t.co/jiv123Yfsi pic.twitter.com/aSD0nuYVKk
— Timothy Wright (@Wright_T_J) October 17, 2024
Previous announcements state that the French-led ELSA project intended to provide a missile with a range of between 1,000 and 2,000 kilometers (621 and 1,243 miles) and that it should be in service by the 2030s.
Many of the similar developments in this field have focused on ground-launched long-range strike capabilities, with the United States very much at the forefront.
The U.S. has announced that it will deploy to Germany, on a rotational basis, starting next year, a range of advanced ground-launched weapons. These include the SM-6 multi-purpose missile and Tomahawk cruise missile, as well as 'developmental hypersonic weapons.' This latter is a reference to the Dark Eagle and potentially others, like the Operational Fires (OpFires) ground-launched hypersonic missile system and the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) short-range ballistic missile, both of which are also now in development.
It is also possible that the Anglo-German effort might result in a weapon for launch from aircraft, ships, or even submarines.
Of these options, a ship-launched cruise missile might be the most practical.
The Royal Navy already operates the U.S.-made Tomahawk cruise missile, launched from its nuclear-powered attack submarines. Recently, it's been reported that Germany is also looking at acquiring Tomahawk to arm its forthcoming Type 127 frigates, although it could also be retrofitted on in-service German Navy surface combatants. Tomahawk, which is conventionally armed, has a range of around 1,000 miles with a 1,000-pound unitary warhead.
Tomahawk can be fired from the Mk 41 vertical launch system (VLS), found on most German frigate classes, while the U.K. Royal Navy is building two new classes of warship that will also have these launchers. The same VLS could also be an option for the deep precision strike weapon.
In terms of air-launched options, there will be a degree of commonality between the United Kingdom's F-35B stealth fighters and the F-35As on order for Germany, although it's questionable whether an air-launched cruise missile with this kind of range could be carried even externally by a Joint Strike Fighter. Certainly, it would be too large to fit internally in the stealth fighter's weapons bays, especially the F-35B, which has less space for internal stores. A more suitable air-launch platform might be the Eurofighter Typhoon, operated by both countries and already proven to be capable of carrying heavier external stores, notably in the shape of the Storm Shadow.
If a cruise missile is the chosen path toward achieving the deep precision strike weapon, the two countries may select one with hypersonic performance, which would make it considerably harder for hostile air defenses to intercept. Germany and the United Kingdom are already working on hypersonic powerplants, with the U.K. Ministry of Defense's Team Hypersonics (UK) program notably seeking to have a hypersonic weapon technology demonstrator ready by 2030. There is also the possibility that, from the British side, the effort could draw upon hypersonic missile research being undertaken as part of the trilateral Australia-United Kingdom-United States (AUKUS) security cooperation agreement.
Developing a new ballistic missile to fulfill the deep precision strike criteria is also a possibility, but it's been many decades since either the United Kingdom or Germany were developing and producing these kinds of weapons.
Whether a cruise missile or a ballistic missile, the announcement about the new weapon does not mention the kind of warhead that it will carry. Recent developments suggest that a nuclear payload capability, even if a latent feature, should perhaps not be ruled out.
Currently, the United Kingdom maintains a submarine-based nuclear deterrent, based around Trident 2 D5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Germany does not have its own nuclear weapons, but is supplied with U.S.-owned B61 thermonuclear bombs under the NATO nuclear-sharing arrangement.
Under U.S. President Donald Trump, there have been increasing discussions about the future of nuclear deterrence among European leaders, reflecting a deepening crisis in the transatlantic alliance. Before he took office, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz called for talks with his British and French colleagues about European 'nuclear sharing or at least nuclear security.' Meanwhile, France has reportedly looked at the possibility of deploying its own air-launched nuclear weapons to Germany in the future.
With these developments in mind, it's certainly conceivable that the United Kingdom and Germany might consider a nuclear-armed deep precision strike weapon, especially if Germany begins to have doubts about the reliability of Washington in helping to secure its nuclear deterrent.
Overall, the joint deep precision strike reflects the growing push by both the United Kingdom and Germany to bolster European security, while at the same time driving economic growth.
As part of the burgeoning military cooperation between the two countries under the Trinity House Agreement, yesterday also saw the announcement of a joint procurement program for Sting Ray torpedoes to arm P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol and reconnaissance aircraft. These are being procured by both the United Kingdom and Germany, which previously unveiled plans to operate their fleets closely together, to provide better anti-submarine warfare coverage of the critical North Atlantic region.
Since the agreement was signed in October, German crews have joined U.K. Royal Air Force personnel in flights on Poseidon aircraft.
Other elements of the Trinity House Agreement that have previously been announced include a new artillery gun barrel factory in the United Kingdom, a commitment to manufacturing Boxer armored vehicles in the United Kingdom, and a pledge to work jointly with undisclosed partners to integrate air defense systems 'to better protect European airspace against the threat of long-range missiles.'
As for the Anglo-German effort to develop a new deep precision strike weapon, the details of what this will look like are still to be resolved. While this is very likely a longer-term initiative, it points again to a growing focus on long-range fire capabilities in Europe and may well ultimately have a significant effect on the strategic balance on the continent.
Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump's nod to Europe on a future peace force for Ukraine vastly improves its chances of success
Trump's nod to Europe on a future peace force for Ukraine vastly improves its chances of success

Los Angeles Times

time23 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Trump's nod to Europe on a future peace force for Ukraine vastly improves its chances of success

BRUSSELS — The greenlight given by President Trump on U.S. backup for a European-led force to police any future peace agreement in Ukraine vastly improves the likelihood it might succeed. European leaders said Trump offered his backing during a call they held ahead of his summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday. The effectiveness of the operation, drawn up by the so-called coalition of the willing of around 30 countries supporting Ukraine, hinges on U.S. backup with airpower or other military equipment that European armed forces do not have, or only in short supply. EU leaders regularly have underlined how the United States is 'crucial' to the success of the security operation dubbed Multinational Force Ukraine. But the Trump administration has long refused to commit, perhaps keeping its participation on hold as leverage in talks with Russia. After a meeting Wednesday between Trump and European leaders, European Council President Antonio Costa welcomed 'the readiness of the United States to share with Europe the efforts to reinforce security conditions once we obtain a durable and just peace for Ukraine.' French President Emmanuel Macron said Trump had insisted NATO must not be part of these security guarantees, but the U.S. leader agreed 'the United States and all the (other) parties involved should take part.' 'It's a very important clarification,' Macron said. Trump did not publicly confirm he would allow U.S. backup, and no details of possible U.S. support were made public, but U.S. Vice President JD Vance sat in on the coalition meeting for the first time. More than 200 military planners have worked for months on ways to ensure a future peace should the war, now in its fourth year, finally halt. Ukraine's armed forces also have been involved, and British personnel have led reconnaissance work inside Ukraine. The exact size of the force has not been made public, although Britain has said it could number 10,000 to 30,000 troops. It must be enough to deter Russian forces, but also of a realistic size for nations that shrank their militaries after the Cold War and are now rearming. The 'reassurance' force's mission 'will be to strengthen Ukraine's defenses on the land, at sea, and in the air because the Ukrainian Armed Forces are the best deterrent against future Russian aggression,' U.K. Defence Secretary John Healey told lawmakers last month. 'It will secure Ukraine's skies by using aircraft,' Healey said, 'and it will support safer seas by bolstering the Black Sea Task Force with additional specialist teams.' Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey launched that naval force a year ago to deal with mines in Black Sea waters. The force initially will have its headquarters in Paris before moving to London next year. A coordination headquarters in Kyiv will be involved once hostilities cease and it deploys. European efforts to set up the force have been seen as a first test of the continent's willingness to defend itself and its interests, given Trump administration warnings that Europe must take care of its own security and that of Ukraine in future. Still, U.S. forces clearly provide a deterrent that the Europeans cannot muster. Details of what the U.S. might contribute were unknown, and Trump has changed his mind in the past, so it remains to be seen whether this signal will be enough to persuade more countries within the coalition to provide troops. Greece has publicly rejected doing so. Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said last month that those discussions were 'somewhat divisive' and distracted from the goal of ending the war as soon as possible. Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has said Rome won't contribute troops, but she previously has underlined the importance of working with the U.S. on ending the conflict and called for the participation of an American delegation in force coordination meetings. Cook writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Emma Burrows in London contributed to this report.

Map Shows Alaska's Natural Resources That Trump Could Offer Putin
Map Shows Alaska's Natural Resources That Trump Could Offer Putin

Newsweek

time24 minutes ago

  • Newsweek

Map Shows Alaska's Natural Resources That Trump Could Offer Putin

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Newsweek has mapped the coastal areas around Alaska that could be part of an incentive deal President Donald Trump offers Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war with Ukraine. Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper reported that access to Alaska's natural resources—oil and gas—could be up for discussion when the leaders meet in Anchorage on Friday, as well as rare earth minerals in Ukraine and lifting some sanctions on Russia's aviation sector. A White House official told the Daily Telegraph that it would not comment on deliberative conversations that may or may not be happening. Newsweek reached out to the White House for comment. U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders' summit in Danang, Vietnam, on November 17, 2017. U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders' summit in Danang, Vietnam, on November 17, 2017. Why It Matters The Bering Strait separates Alaska from Russia where they are less than 3 miles apart. As well as being strategically important because of melting Arctic sea ice and expanding shipping routes, it could also be a gateway to considerable undiscovered oil reserves. Alaska's oil and gas exploration leases are concentrated on its North Slope facing the Arctic Ocean and in the Pacific-facing Cook Inlet connecting the Gulf of Alaska to Anchorage. In the 1980s, U.S. energy companies drilled into the Bering Sea looking for untapped reserves, but all of those wells have been abandoned and the area is strictly regulated because of environmental concerns. There has been angry online reaction to the unconfirmed report that Alaska's resources could be part of a deal with Putin. What To Know Trump will meet with Putin on Friday in Anchorage, where discussions are expected to focus on ending the war in Ukraine which has been raging for 3 1/2 years. The Telegraph said that U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other senior administration officials are working with Trump to finalize economic proposals aimed at incentivizing the Kremlin to agree to a ceasefire. Among them are offering Russia opportunities to tap into the valuable natural resources in the Bering Strait that would bolster its interests in the Arctic region, which accounted for 80 percent of Russia's gas production in 2022. Discussions between the U.S. and Russia over cooperation in the Arctic started at the beginning of Trump's second term, with Bloomberg reporting in February that officials from both countries discussed economic cooperation in the region. Andreas Østhagen, research director of Arctic and ocean politics at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, told Newsweek that the proximity of Alaska's location to Russia for Friday's summit sent a strong signal about the Arctic's importance for both countries. He said some of the motivation from the Trump administration to work with Russia stemmed from the idea that U.S.-Russia cooperation could then drive a wedge between the strengthening alliance between Moscow and China in the Arctic. He said there are known quantities of oil and gas in the Chukchi Sea north of the Bering Strait where there was potential to initiate exploration for strategic oil fields, which would require Russian and American companies to collaborate in some fashion, Østhagen added. Berlin-based energy industry expert Thomas O'Donnell told Newsweek that a potential Trump offer for Putin to exploit Alaskan resources was consistent with his Plan A, which offered the Russian president a chance to end the war with oil, gas, and mineral deals. The idea was to induce Putin not only to make a peace deal but to move away from China and back toward the West, but the plan has not worked, he said. Trump's newly approved arms for Ukraine and oil tariffs on India are Plan B, "but, if Putin makes a deal, I'm sure Trump will lavish Putin with investments and trade deals," O'Donnell added. The Telegraph also reported that the U.S. might offer the rare earth minerals in the Ukrainian territories Moscow partially occupied and lift export bans on parts and equipment needed to service Russian planes, many of which have fallen into disrepair. What People Are Saying Republicans Against Trump, on X: "The Telegraph reports that Trump plans to offer Putin access to Alaska's natural resources and sanctions relief if he agrees to a ceasefire Why reward an aggressor who has no interest in a real and lasting ceasefire? Outrageous!" Andreas Østhagen, research director of Arctic and ocean politics at the Fridtjof Nansen Institute, told Newsweek: "if you want to push this idea of collaboration with Russia, in the Chukchi Sea there's potential to initiate exploration." Berlin-based energy industry expert Thomas O'Donnell told Newsweek: "Trump's whole premise is to entice Putin to stop the war in a way that draws him away from China and towards the West." What Happens Next The Kremlin said that the Russian delegation accompanying Putin will include Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Defense Minister Andrei Belousov, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov and Russian Direct Investment Fund head Kirill Dmitriev. The Kremlin said that the main topic on Friday will be a settlement of the war in Ukraine, but economic cooperation and global security will also be discussed.

The EU urges China to lift 'unjustified' sanctions on Lithuanian banks

time24 minutes ago

The EU urges China to lift 'unjustified' sanctions on Lithuanian banks

VILNIUS, Lithuania -- The European Union on Thursday called on China to revoke sanctions imposed on two Lithuanian banks, arguing there is no justification for them. Beijing announced the measures this week against Urbo Bank and Mano Bank in retaliation for EU penalties on two Chinese lenders. The Lithuanian banks do not operate in China, giving Beijing's move a largely symbolic character. Nonetheless, the tit-for-tat measures underscore deepening tensions between the EU and China over Beijing's support for Russia in its war on Ukraine. In this case, China targeted banks from an EU member with whom diplomatic ties have been particularly strained due to Lithuania's relationship with Taiwan. At EU headquarters in Brussels, European Commission spokesperson Olof Gill defended the bloc's sanctions on Chinese banks. China 'must respect the problems we have identified,' Gill said. 'Our sanctions are the centerpiece of our efforts to minimize the effectiveness of the Russian war machine.' He said the Commission does not believe that the Chinese countermeasures 'have any justification or are evidence based, and therefore we call on China to remove them even now.' The EU's latest Russia sanctions package, adopted in July and effective August 9, included Heihe Rural Commercial Bank and Heilongjiang Suifenhe Rural Commercial Bank. The bloc accused them of providing crypto-asset services that help Moscow evade restrictions. In explaining its sanctions on the Lithuanian banks, the Chinese Ministry said the EU sanctions on Chinese firms had "a serious negative impact on China-EU economic and trade relations and financial cooperation.' The banks and the government in Lithuania said the sanctions were not expected but would likely have little practical impact. 'According to the preliminary assessment, this decision will not have a significant impact on either the country's financial system or the activities of the banks themselves, since the business models of the mentioned banks are focused on the local market,' the Bank of Lithuania said on Wednesday in a statement. Marius Arlauskas, the head of administration of Urbo Bank, said: 'Since we do not have any business partnerships with Chinese individuals or legal entities, the sanctions will have no impact on the activities of Urbo Bank and the implementation of prudential regulations." The Baltic nation has drawn China's ire for years. Beijing expelled Lithuania's ambassador in 2021 in response to Lithuania allowing Taiwan to open a liaison office in Vilnius, the Lithuanian capital. China regards Taiwan as a breakaway province and prohibits other countries from having formal ties with Taipei. Taiwan has long sought closer relations with the Baltic states, citing their past experiences under authoritarian rule and embrace of multiparty democracy and liberal values. severing of two undersea data cables. One runs under the Baltic Sea between Lithuania and Sweden.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store