UK's Project Brakestop

Forest Green said:
Seems like a huge range difference for simply halving warhead weight, normally that only yields a ~60% difference.
Click to expand...
I suspect that there's a flight profile change in there as well.

Plus likely some more fuel. So it's not 150kg lighter, it's the same airframe with however much fuel volumetrically replaces half the warhead.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I suspect that there's a flight profile change in there as well.

Plus likely some more fuel. So it's not 150kg lighter, it's the same airframe with however much fuel volumetrically replaces half the warhead.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless Tomahawk required a 3-fold reduction in warhead mass for less of a range improvment looking at the Gryphon.
 
Forest Green said:
Nevertheless Tomahawk required a 3-fold reduction in warhead mass for less of a range improvment looking at the Gryphon.
Click to expand...
Nuclear Tomahawk always had a longer range than conventional Tomahawk, the warhead is that much lighter. Despite nuclear Tomahawk not enlarging the fuel tanks to take up the volume no longer occupied by the warhead section.

Also, if you can spend more time at medium altitude that will help your range due to less drag. More fuel plus less drag equals longer range. I'm thinking ~1000-1500km flight at medium altitude to the edge of the defended area, then the missiles dive for the deck to ingress.

Guesstimating propulsion by a Williams F107-WR-402 making 700lbs thrust, the TSFC suggests that at full power, the engine will burn 478lbs of fuel in one hour's flight. If the cruise flight power setting is more like 80%, fuel consumption drops to about 385lbs/hr.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Nuclear Tomahawk always had a longer range than conventional Tomahawk, the warhead is that much lighter. Despite nuclear Tomahawk not enlarging the fuel tanks to take up the volume no longer occupied by the warhead section.
Click to expand...
It did but the W80 was about 388lb vs 1000lb for the conventional warhead. Maybe the difference is added fuel in this case though, although that seems more complicated from a mass production PoV, since you would need two designs.

All 3 of the missiles in one video here I think.
https://twitter.com/x/status/2069011164529578161
View: https://x.com/ForcesNews/status/2069011164529578161?s=20
 
Last edited:
TorpedoJ said:
150kg to 2700km is quite an interesting capability, look at the range circles from RAF Marham and Akrotiri:
Click to expand...
2,700km you say? The distance previously known as 1,500 nautical miles, which was set as the range requirement for OR.229 and subsequently OR.1139, amongst other projects?
Forest Green said:
Seems like a huge range difference for simply halving warhead weight, normally that only yields a ~60% difference.
Click to expand...
That will depend on the ratio of warhead to fuel. One could imagine eliminating almost all fuel to get a (proportionately) large warhead to the other end of the launch site. Or else eliminating the fuel entirely and painting rude messages on the side.
 
Forest Green said:
Seems like a huge range difference for simply halving warhead weight, normally that only yields a ~60% difference.
Click to expand...

To be honest, and I know HMG (and especially HMT) doesn't work like this....especially right now....IF they all work satisfactorily (and as ever that's a big IF), I think there is a real case for not selecting 1 design but selecting all 3....

1 - MBDA Crossbow by dint of it coming from MBDA might interest other European (and other) nations. MBDA have the sales infrastructure. contracts and long standing relationships after all....other European nations might be tempted to buy Crossbow for Ukraine or for themselves as a result...
2 - Rotron's long range brings an entirely new capability potentially for the UK as well....
3 - MGI's Tigershark uses 2 UK built engines so will also develop a key sector of the defence economy, plus we really need to encourage new entrants in the defence business, not awarding to them (or Rotron) and instead awarding to MBDA could be seen as more of the same by other potential entrants in MoD business....Modini and Cambridge Aerospace have had game changing orders, be rather helpful if Rotron and MGI did as well (and it doesn't have to cost the earth either...).

Now clearly there are negatives to that approach....without foreign orders either for their own use or for supply onwards to Ukraine you could lose the volumes needed to make the approach really work....but I suspect there are people in the Gulf, and the JEF countries, who would be willing to commit to a decent number of units....ideally you'd want to be making more than 20 of each per month...

EDIT: As a thought experiment.....for the UK you could buy any one of the above entrants.....and ALL of the Argentinian air bases used in the Falklands (including Trelew) are in range from Mount Pleasant...for c£20m I suspect you could get 40-50 missiles and some launch vehicles to park down there....for the Rotron Skylance, with lower payload option, Buenos Aires itself is in range....
 
Last edited:
timmymagic said:
1 - MBDA Crossbow by dint of it coming from MBDA might interest other European (and other) nations. MBDA have the sales infrastructure. contracts and long standing relationships after all....other European nations might be tempted to buy Crossbow for Ukraine or for themselves as a result...
Click to expand...
The French are already interested in Crossbow and it has the most pan-European supply chain, but it is the weakest of the 3 in capability terms and MBDA have other things to be working on.
timmymagic said:
2 - Rotron's long range brings an entirely new capability potentially for the UK as well....
Click to expand...
I agree, if Rotron can evolve SkyLance into an even larger Tomahawk sized missile that can carry 300kg to 3000km then the UK would have a strategic conventional weapon again as a much cheaper alternative to a Nightfall-based MRBM programme. Camp Viking in Norway to the northern edge of the Caspian Sea...
timmymagic said:
3 - MGI's Tigershark uses 2 UK built engines so will also develop a key sector of the defence economy, plus we really need to encourage new entrants in the defence business, not awarding to them (or Rotron) and instead awarding to MBDA could be seen as more of the same by other potential entrants in MoD business....Modini and Cambridge Aerospace have had game changing orders, be rather helpful if Rotron and MGI did as well (and it doesn't have to cost the earth either...).
Click to expand...
Tigershark also has the potential for upgrades. On the day the test firings were announced they quietly put up a new page on their website for a pair of ACPs, Tigershark II and LeopardShark: https://mgidefence.co.uk/mgi-t010b-tigershark-ii/ https://mgidefence.co.uk/mgi-t022-leopardshark/
Tigershark II is effectively a double-decker Tigershark with a second engine and extra volume added for retractable landing gear and an internal payload bay. The MTOW is only 1000kg but the payload is 300kg with 1000km range, which can either be carried in the internal bay or on two wing hardpoints.
LeopardShark is a proper ACP with a 3500kg MTOW, 1000kg payload and '>4000km' (!) range. 600kg can be carried in the internal bay or 600kg under the wings.
 
TorpedoJ said:
Tigershark also has the potential for upgrades. On the day the test firings were announced they quietly put up a new page on their website for a pair of ACPs, Tigershark II and LeopardShark: https://mgidefence.co.uk/mgi-t010b-tigershark-ii/ https://mgidefence.co.uk/mgi-t022-leopardshark/
Click to expand...

Yes I was about to create a thread for those...FYI Tigershark appears to have 2 x Argive Alloyed A1100 engines as standard, the BFBS News video showed the rear of the missile. They're arranged 'Lightning' style on top of each other....

TorpedoJ said:
The French are already interested in Crossbow and it has the most pan-European supply chain, but it is the weakest of the 3 in capability terms and MBDA have other things to be working on.
Click to expand...

Yes the French, and perhaps the Czech's (due to PBS) are obvious customers. But MBDA's name, support, relationships will count for a lot. Having MBDA build more capacity is a good thing overall for their entire portfolio. I suspect MBDA would have more 'inroads' elsewhere (specifically the Gulf) than others as well...
 
timmymagic said:
Yes I was about to create a thread for those...FYI Tigershark appears to have 2 x Argive Alloyed A1100 engines as standard, the BFBS News video showed the rear of the missile. They're arranged 'Lightning' style on top of each other....
Click to expand...
Huh, I hadn't noticed that Tigershark itself had two engines. I thought that was the change it made for Tigershark II to bring the MTOW up. They must just be bigger ones.
Here's an internal arrangement for Tigershark clearly showing the two engines:
1782202699337.png
 
TorpedoJ said:
Huh, I hadn't noticed that Tigershark itself had two engines. I thought that was the change it made for Tigershark II to bring the MTOW up. They must just be bigger ones.
Click to expand...

As far as I know Argive have 2 engines in production, the smaller A300 seen on the MGI SkyShark (30kg/66lb thrust) and the A1100 on Tigershark (of which there is little known apart from thrust of 120kg/260lb ). However, they do mention their family design and rapid development so it wouldn't be a shock if they made a larger one as well.
 
Rotron Skylance's 150kg to 2,700km is 1,458nm.
Sufficient for quite a variety of territories it could be launched from.

Granted that against a decent standard of defences it would need to launched in substantial numbers and as part of a wider package of offensive systems used. As with all Brakestop solutions.

But against poor or zero defences it gives near TLAM range.

All the designs have nice constant section fusilages that open up prospects of stretched longer ranged developments.
 
zen said:
All the designs have nice constant section fusilages that open up prospects of stretched longer ranged developments.
Click to expand...

And I suspect folding wings for at least 2 missiles per launch vehicle is not beyond the wit of man either...
 
With the right engineering,they could be made VLS compatible. Depending on the booster.
 
timmymagic said:
And I suspect folding wings for at least 2 missiles per launch vehicle is not beyond the wit of man either...
Click to expand...
The detachable wings mean that with 2 vehicles, one with a crane and the rail and one containing lots of fuselages and wings, a lot of missiles can be launched. A containerised 4-pack with folding wings would be nice, though it wouldn't work for SkyLance obviously.
 
Skylance would need a folding propeller, not impossible as such existfor powered gliders.
The shrouded fan option drives a container up in cross section. But would reduce noise, and some radar reflection.

Notice that not only be the wings on all these options detachable, but by that virtue, changeable. Allowing different wings should say length of fuselage and weight increase in developments.
 
zen said:
Skylance would need a folding propeller, not impossible as such existfor powered gliders.
The shrouded fan option drives a container up in cross section. But would reduce noise, and some radar reflection.

Notice that not only be the wings on all these options detachable, but by that virtue, changeable. Allowing different wings should say length of fuselage and weight increase in developments.
Click to expand...
Defendor's shrouded fan is 825mm in diameter. Assuming fan area is proportional to MTOW SkyLance would require a 1480mm fan and a more powerful engine than it has at the moment- Defendor's twin-rotor engine is only slightly less powerful than the quad-rotor type on SkyLance.
 
zen said:
Why would we assume that, when a rocket booster is what's accelerating it to flying speed?
Click to expand...
Not for the ducted fan, the thrust vectoring allows Defendor to take off vertically without a booster. A FDS SkyLance would presumably use a similar mechanism for VL.
 
TorpedoJ said:
I agree, if Rotron can evolve SkyLance into an even larger Tomahawk sized missile that can carry 300kg to 3000km then the UK would have a strategic conventional weapon again as a much cheaper alternative to a Nightfall-based MRBM programme. Camp Viking in Norway to the northern edge of the Caspian Sea...
Click to expand...
Nightfall and possibly MRBM derivatives are for time-critical targets, these weapons are for volume attack against non-TC targets.
 
TorpedoJ said:
Not for the ducted fan, the thrust vectoring allows Defendor to take off vertically without a booster. A FDS SkyLance would presumably use a similar mechanism for VL.
Click to expand...
Granted VL by ducted fan would greatly ease requirements on the silo...
 
CJGibson said:
I defer to your knowledge. Twas far away.

Chris
Click to expand...
There's a prop and a jet powered one. Jet powered one was delivered to Ukraine as a strike platform so could be connected. Or could be an AD exercise. Suspect the range is heavily booked at the mo...the Typhoon APKWS work will be ongoing as well...

I think all of the Brakestop drones on their first flight will follow a set flight path then be crashed...
 
This was a prop job. Was watching it with the bins, then saw a puff of smoke and the chute deployed, which was when I swapped to the phone for snaps.

Missus was perusing the jewellery shop, I was outside with my father-in-law. Not the first time we have shared an unusual sighting.

Chris
 

Attachments

  • 20260622_115814.jpg
    20260622_115814.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 18
  • 20260622_115817.jpg
    20260622_115817.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 17
  • 20260622_115821.jpg
    20260622_115821.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 16
  • 20260622_115823.jpg
    20260622_115823.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 20
  • 20260622_115828.jpg
    20260622_115828.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 24
  • Screenshot_20260622_115700.jpg
    Screenshot_20260622_115700.jpg
    610.2 KB · Views: 32
Forest Green said:
It did but the W80 was about 388lb vs 1000lb for the conventional warhead. Maybe the difference is added fuel in this case though, although that seems more complicated from a mass production PoV, since you would need two designs.
Click to expand...
Depends on how modular the design is.

After all, if you've got a wet fuselage section there's not necessarily a lot of difference between one 3 frames long and 4 or 5 frames long.

Or they might be using two separate fuel tanks.
 

MBDA validates the first firings of the CROSSBOW, nine months after the launch of the program​

https://opexnews.fr/mbda-missile-crossbow-eurosatory/
The aircraft itself measures just over 5 meters, weighs 750 kg at launch, and can carry up to 300 kg of payload, kinetic or electronic, to a range of over 800 kilometers. In subsonic flight (approximately 600 km/h), it navigates using a combination of inertial navigation systems, enhanced anti-jamming GPS, visual terrain recognition via artificial intelligence (AI), and terminal sensors. This layering of guidance modes is a direct response to the conditions encountered in current theaters of operation, where Russian satellite jamming is commonplace.
Click to expand...
CROSSBOW is not intended to compete with the Storm Shadow or the future land-based cruise missile that MBDA plans to launch after 2029. It fits between two existing categories. Below them are reactive artillery systems, which have a shorter range. Above them are sophisticated cruise missiles, which are too rare and too expensive to be used on every intermediate target.
Click to expand...
1782565428355.png

Little disappointed by the speed, it was quoted as high subsonic elsewhere.
 
I do believe that this is the appropriate thread for this video by Wes O'Donnell concerning project Brakestop:


The UK is making Ukraine a missile with ZERO U.S. components or map data. Project Brakestop!
Click to expand...
On Independence Day no less!
Click to expand...
How dare you, your majesty!
Click to expand...
Britain just test-fired three prototype long-range strike missiles for Ukraine, and the most important design requirement wasn't range or warhead size. It was the deliberate exclusion of every American component and every American navigation dataset, so London, not Washington, controls when they ship and how Ukraine is allowed to use them. ITAR is the quiet leash on every Western missile with U.S. parts inside it. Brakestop is Britain cutting the cord.​
Click to expand...
Our gameshow contestants (the missiles) start at 6:17https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiEjgqpROoE&t=377s
Click to expand...
Video Sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z...https://www.youtube.com/redirect?ev...7J07ZSvoAsD_sA/edit?usp=sharing&v=XiEjgqpROoE
#UK #Britain #Ukraine #UkraineWar #USA #July4 #Military #Brakestop #BritishMilitary #StormShadow #UkraineWeapons #NATO
Click to expand...

I have to say that I've got very annoyed the USA and its' ITAR shenanigans that it has been pulling.
 
NMaude said:
I have to say that I've got very annoyed the USA and its' ITAR shenanigans that it has been pulling.
Click to expand...

A lot of the ITAR lessons were learned in the distant past. For example its been unstated and unwritten UK policy that all air launched weapons are ITAR free for at least a decade now. The issues around Black Shaheen (partly MTCR), then PWIV and Asraam drove that change...Storm Shadow MLU, Meteor, Asraam Blk VI, Brimstone 3, Starstreak 2/3, LMM, FCASW, Sea Venom are all ITAR free....as I suspect Stingray Mod 1 is...(it did originally have a Sperry gyroscope).

The only exceptions to that rule at present are Paveway IV (which although made in Glenrothes is a Raytheon product) which predates a lot of the ITAR furore and the MBDA Spear which, weirdly as a recent system, has a US built engine.....there have been reports that part of the reason for the endless delays is due to issues/delays with US supplied components. Which might be the engine. Hopefully with new UK built engines being built and developed the P & W engine will be ditched in due course, and any other US components removed....at some point we will have to address PWIV as well....

My pet theory is that the institutional memory of why we went ITAR free in the first place was declining as people involved in earlier issues retire etc., hence why SPEAR ended up with a US engine. But the recent US policy (under Biden and Trump) in Ukraine has served to reinvigorate that memory....quite why/how the French manage to maintain that 'memory' over generations is something we really need to study and adopt... (particularly as we've just allowed Ultra, a key sovereign capability, to be taken over by LM....).
 
The reason for 'lapses of memory', is much more related to things that ought to concern the Police and the Security Services.

----
On reflection this bit is deleted, because it is true.
------
Let us hope that more development of domestic capability and capacity such as with missiles comes forth from this decision to restart production and order more weaponry.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Not sur eif this is formally part of Brakestop or not.

https://breakingdefense.com/2026/07...ns-drone-wingman-program-unveils-new-designs/


Rotron Skylance might fit that description.
Click to expand...

No its not.

Storm Fire appears to be 'Lanner', a QinetiQ OWE. Prop driven, flying wing design. Obviously smaller and slower than Brakestop.

This seems to have also gone by the name MALFY at some point. I suspect the Storm Chrome EW drone might be a derivative with an EW payload, probably BriteCloud derived. Presumably Storm Chrome is more attritable than Storm Shroud with its BriteStorm EW package....if its not that then you'd have to assume it was a more complex and faster EW platform. How that would sit alongside Spear-EW would be interesting...

https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detai...s-at-a-lanner-uav-as-he-news-photo/2217828142
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom