Cruise missile delays ‘spell disaster' for Britain's stealth jets
Britain's most advanced warplanes will not be able to shoot missiles at ground targets until at least 2030, ministers have admitted.
The F-35B stealth jet was originally poised to gain long-range Spear 3 missiles capable of taking out tanks, air defences and bunkers from this year, a target that was later pushed back to 2028.
But in an embarrassing blow to the Ministry of Defence, procurement minister Maria Eagle has revealed that their deployment will now be delayed until the early 2030s.
It leaves British F-35B pilots reliant on dropped bombs to strike ground targets, with one expert comparing the situation to the dangerous missions carried out by Lancaster bomber crews in the Second World War.
The aircraft shared by the Royal Navy and Air Force are currently only equipped with Paveway IV precision-guided bombs, along with medium and short-range air-to-air missiles.
By comparison, the British-made Spear 3 would allow pilots to launch air-to-ground strikes on targets more than 60 miles away.
Critics warned the delay risks leaving Britain underpowered at a time when the heads of the Army and MI6 have called for the military to be prepared for war with Russia within a few years.
Francis Tusa, an independent defence analyst, said: 'This is a massive disaster for the MoD.
'Spear 3 is meant to be a game-changing missile that will give British pilots a capability that the Russians are genuinely scared of.
'But at the moment, if they want to take out ground targets with our F-35Bs, they will have to fly above them and drop a gravity bomb – much like the Lancaster bomber pilots did during the Second World War.
'It undermines the case for having the F-35 in the first place.'
In a written statement to MPs, Ms Eagle gave no explanation for the delay to Spear 3, but claimed the programme was 'currently undergoing re-baselining'.
It represents the latest setback in the MoD's year-long effort to equip the American-made F-35B jets with a broader range of weaponry, changes that must ultimately be signed off by Washington.
The UK has also been seeking to add longer-range Meteor missiles to the warplane's arsenal, another capability that is not expected until at least the end of this decade.
Spear 3 and Meteor missiles have been developed by MBDA, an Anglo-European manufacturer, whereas the F-35 is built by the US defence giant Lockheed Martin.
The F-35B has been in service with the Navy and Air Force since 2018 and is one of the UK's most expensive defence platforms ever, with each aircraft costing £90m.
They are designed to penetrate enemy territory and carry out devastating strikes, using cutting-edge technology to mask their presence from radar and air defence systems.
Capable of short take-offs and vertical landings, the UK's jets are intended to be operated from the Navy's aircraft carriers and several are currently deployed with HMS Prince of Wales on a tour of the Indo-Pacific.
But the lack of long-range air-to-ground missile capability is seen as a key weakness that limits the jets' effectiveness.
The Ministry of Defence has been seeking to address the problem for years, but its target date for introducing the Spear 3 missile has repeatedly slipped.
Spear 3 was successfully test-fired for the first time last year, but using a Typhoon fighter jet.
In November, the Navy described the tank-busting weapon as 'the next generation of air-to-surface missiles' that would 'provide a new capability to defeat the most complex air defence systems'.
Each F-35B will eventually be able to carry up to eight Spear 3 missiles.
James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said: 'With the threats we face from Russia, it's vital that the Royal Air Force has the most cutting-edge weaponry integrated onto all its combat aircraft – available in the near term rather than decades into the future.
'The whole approach of our defence industry and the MoD has to be on accelerating capability into use, taking a less risk-averse approach at every stage.
'For example, Ukraine was able to rapidly integrate our Storm Shadow missile onto their SU24 jets because their total focus was on getting the weapon into service, even if that meant dispensing with lengthy testing and certification.
'The need for our military to focus on near-term threats and war readiness has never been more pressing, and the strategic defence review must enable a transformed approach to risk throughout the MoD.'
The fresh delays will also be seen as a fresh blow to the F-35 programme at a time when ministers are deciding whether to purchase more of the cutting-edge American aircraft, as opposed to the older, but British-made, Eurofighter Typhoons.
It is thought that this question will be tackled in the Strategic Defence Review, which ministers are expected to publish soon.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
17 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Russian billionaire and Putin critic launches AI data centres in the UK
A Russian billionaire and critic of Vladimir Putin is preparing to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in artificial intelligence (AI) data centres in the UK. Nebius, a technology company headquartered in the Netherlands, will invest £200m to establish an 'AI factory' in Britain, deploying 4,000 graphics-processing chips designed to power the latest generation of machine-learning technology. The $12bn (£9bn) business is assessing potential data centre sites in the South East. Nebius was formed as part of a carve-up of Yandex, a company known as 'Russia's Google'. Arkady Volozh, a Russian entrepreneur worth a reported $2bn, founded Yandex in 1997 as a Russian rival to the US search engine. The business later listed in New York and in 2021 was valued at more than $30bn. However, its shares were suspended in 2022 after Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Mr Volozh was sanctioned by the European Union. Over the years Yandex faced growing pressure from the Kremlin to censor online news and search results, and the company was accused by Brussels of helping to spread Kremlin propaganda. In 2023, Mr Volozh labelled Vladimir Putin's invasion 'barbaric' and said he was 'horrified' by the war. He said: 'I am categorically against it. Although I moved to Israel in 2014, I have to take my share of responsibility for the country's actions. 'There were reasons to stay silent during this long process. While there will anyway be questions about the timing of my statement today, there should be no questions about its essence. I am against the war.' The European Union removed its sanctions of Mr Volozh last year. Nebius was formed as part of a carve-up of Yandex, which spun off its Russian search division in a $5bn deal to Russian investors. Nebius, which is listed in the US, is made up of the remaining European, US and Israeli assets, including several data centres powered by Nvidia microchips and its self-driving car technology. Mr Volozh, Nebius's chief executive, said: 'The UK is where AI is being built, tested, and deployed at scale across industries from fintech to life sciences. Being here puts us closer to the start-ups, researchers, and enterprise leaders shaping what's next.' Nebius's UK investment comes after Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, announced plans to spend more than £1bn to boost the UK's computing power in a speech at London Tech Week alongside Jensen Huang, the Nvidia chief executive. On Monday, the Government announced a series of AI investments ahead of this week's Treasury spending review. These included £1bn for an AI research resource, made up of powerful AI data centres and supercomputers, as well as £187m to boost the technological skills of the UK workforce. On Tuesday, Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, also announced plans for a new Turing AI fellowship in a speech at London Tech Week. Backed by £25m, the programme will seek five AI experts who will be offered a substantial package to relocate to the UK and hire a team to conduct AI research. Mr Kyle said: 'We will harness the vast potential of our trillion-pound tech sector to help remake our country for the better.'
Telegraph
18 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Ed Miliband's nuclear golden era could soon become a new dark age
This Government is fond of making grandiose claims for things that are yet to happen. The latest is Ed Miliband's declaration that we are in 'a golden era of nuclear power.' He has made a series of announcements that may or may not come to fruition over the next two decades, including a new nuclear plant at Sizewell with £14 billion of public money behind it. But Mr Miliband is getting well ahead of himself. History shows that few public policies of modern times have been more mishandled. Britain once led the world in nuclear energy and it was very much a cross-party venture. The post-war Attlee government established the Atomic Energy Research Establishment and the first ever commercial nuclear reactor was built at Calder Hall under the Tories in 1956 just as the Suez crisis increased concerns over the supply of oil. British nuclear expertise was second to none and sought around the world. Under both Conservative and Labour administrations, the UK became a leader in nuclear power development, commencing operations on 26 Magnox reactors between 1956 and 1971. The technology chopped and changed, moving from advanced gas-cooled reactors (AGRs) in the 1970s to pressurised water reactors (PWRs) and even a fast-breeder reactor experiment at Dounreay in Scotland, opened amid great fanfare by Margaret Thatcher but which has now closed. Her government set in train a plan for eight new PWRs, only one of which – Sizewell B – was ever built. What happened? One answer is North Sea oil and gas. Fears about fuel scarcity and sky high prices abated as more came ashore. Cheap gas made the cost of nuclear look prohibitive to politicians fixated only on the short term. Meanwhile, across the Channel, the French, with no oil and depleted coal reserves, invested instead in nuclear power. By 1979 they had installed 56 reactors, satisfying their power needs and even exporting electricity to other European countries, including us. The French are even going to be building Sizewell C. They produce 70 per cent of their electricity by nuclear fission, which does not emit CO2, and are not dependent on energy from volatile regions like the Gulf or despotic regimes like Russia. This serendipity was as much a function of force majeure as foresight. As the French said 'no oil, no gas, no coal, no choice'. As a result they have found themselves in a better position than Britain in the switch to low carbon renewables. Because of the apparent bonanza provided by North Sea oil, we neglected the one source of power that would help create self-sufficiency and meet climate change objectives. Only when it was too late and much of the industry's expertise had been lost did the last Labour government try to reactivate the nuclear programme. Ironically, it was Mr Miliband as Environment Secretary who revived the programme 15 years ago in the teeth of objections from Labour 'greens'. Yet only one new reactor at Hinkley Point – using French technology and, to begin with, Chinese finance – has been given the go ahead. It is way behind schedule by at least six years and massively over budget. For all the trumpet-blowing is the new Sizewell announcement just another milestone along a road paved with good intentions and wretched decision-making? We know it will be hugely expensive and the idea of it coming on stream within 10 years is for the birds. Since it is a copy of Hinkley it should benefit by learning from the mistakes made there. But few can have confidence in the project meeting any of its financial targets or the timetable for construction because nothing in this country ever does. Around the world there is a boom in nuclear power building as countries see it as an essential complement to wind and solar, not least because it provides a baseload and is not dependent on the weather. Sixty reactors are being built globally – 30 of them in China, which has also opened a thorium plant, something we could have done years ago since we have plentiful supplies and the process reduces waste. Is there any area in which the UK can press ahead? Tucked away in his Telegraph article this week, Miliband says the Government is ramping up spending on nuclear fusion research, though this seems more a token mention than an enthusiastic embrace. Yet fusion is one area where the British do have a great deal of expertise, with start-up companies well ahead of any European competitors in raising investment. It is always said that fusion is the future that never arrives because it involves replicating the same processes seen on the Sun. About 35 years ago two chemists shocked the world by claiming they had come up with 'cold fusion' obviating the need to produce the excessive temperatures needed. But the science was flawed, even though some adherents still think cold fusion is possible. Fusion technology is advancing rapidly and is likely to accelerate with the help of AI, high temperature superconducting magnets and supercomputers. But those in the business fear the Government is making the same mistakes as its predecessors in failing to measure the long-term in decades, not parliamentary sessions. China, Japan and America are now in the vanguard of a technology in which the UK once led, as it did with nuclear fission. Arguably, the most important aspect of Miliband's plan is the green light for a fleet of small modular reactors (SMRs), though getting planning agreements past local communities will be hard. Even this has been fraught with bureaucracy and delay. A competition to find a developer for SMRs has taken two years before alighting on Rolls Royce. Why has it taken so long? The potential offered by SMRs was identified years ago; yet once again, government dithering has led to everything being done when it is too late to fill the energy gap that will threaten black-outs in a few years' time. This is because the switch to renewables, the ban on new North Sea extraction licences and the demise of coal will make the decommissioning of existing nuclear power stations even more problematic before new ones come on stream. How long before Mr Miliband's golden era turns into a dark age?
The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A nuanced approach to ageing, sex and gender
Born in 1976, I am around the same age as Susanna Rustin and the generation of 'middle-aged, gender-critical women' who believe that their biological sex should underpin and define their rights (Why is there such a generational divide in views on sex and gender in Britain?, 5 June). I am not one of those people. Forty-nine years' experience of living in a female body in a world deformed by class, caste and economic and racial inequality – never mind environmental destruction – has only made me wonder quite why it matters so much to some people. A truly progressive society should be moving towards seeing the person first, both beyond and in profound recognition of their politicised identities. One can see biological sex as both fundamental and immaterial at the same time. As I approach 50, it's clear to me that it's possible to hold both these thoughts simultaneously. My menopausal womanhood matters as it gets in the way of things I want to do in life. But there's no way it matters to me above all else, and there's no chance it gets in the way to a greater degree than the various effects of social and economic inequality. It is a fallacy to suggest that trans inclusivity is more compatible with capitalism than with collective liberation. If the Progress Pride flag is flown from a corporate building – a rare sight in my experience compared with the rainbow Pride flag – it's not because it 'suits them', in Rustin's words, to shift attention away from class politics towards individual expression. Perhaps younger people better understand that corporate interests don't engage with class politics anyway, so how's a flag going to hurt anyone? I was born with breasts and ovaries, and still have them; I have given birth twice. These facts have had undeniable effects on my life – but so has the disadvantage of my class of birth and the continuing advantage of my whiteness. If I were to look at every aspect of my life through the prism of my reproductive organs, I would be limiting the possibilities of looking at the multiple effects of all those factors in the whole – the effects of which can only lead one to conclude that they are human, a person, first. It's called intersectionality, and that term was come up with by Kimberlé Crenshaw, who was born in 1959. Lynsey HanleyLiverpool Susanna Rustin lists several possibilities for why gen Z are more likely to advocate for the inclusion of transgender women in single-sex spaces. One thing she did not mention is that it may be due to the personal relationships that this demographic is more likely to have with transgender individuals, and how much more easily it is to sympathise with the struggles of those we know. As an older member of gen Z, I have had two openly trans peers in my cohort during my time at university, my former neighbour was transgender, and now in my workplace I have a transgender colleague. This resembles the norm – a Guardian article from June 2022 suggests that 50% of British gen Zers said they knew at least one transgender person. I would argue that gen Z more openly fights for the inclusion and protections of transgender women because we're more likely to see them as truly women, rather than 'self-identifying' individuals, due to our personal connections with them. To me, my trans female colleague would intrude on my bodily privacy the same amount as my cis female colleague would. As always, I implore others to seek out the voices and stories of transgender people if knowing them personally may be outside your generational demographic, so we can better empathise with this often scapegoated BarkerCamelford, Cornwall Thank you for such a well-written and clearly argued article by Susanna Rustin. I am pleased to see the Guardian publishing this piece. It is very important to be able to speak openly about these important issues and engage in frank but respectful debate. I completely agree with the author and would also add that with age comes experience, a certain weariness, a generally more nuanced outlook on life and a deep understanding of how embodied our experiences are but also anger – anger that hard-won women's rights, protections, dignity and safety can be so easily dismissed by so-called and address supplied Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
