The Brimstone missile was originally called the Advanced Anti -Armour Weapon and was designed to meet the 1982 Staff Requirement (Air) 138 for a stand-off weapon to replace the Hunting Engineering BL755 and RBL755 cluster bombs.
Brimstone was thus designed to defeat massed armoured attacks, ostensibly, Warsaw pact forces in Central Europe. The BL755 was an effective weapon but against newer armour its usefulness was questionable. As part of the Options for Change review, funding was ceased but shortly after, the 1991 Gulf War demonstrated a clear need for a fast jet launched anti-armour weapon and the project was resurrected
In 1994 the Staff Requirement (Air) 1238 was issued, known as the Advanced Anti-Armour Weapon (AAAW)
SR(A) 1238 was very demanding, requiring a completely autonomous weapon that could provide an all-weather, day/night system that could defeat all known armour with a generous margin for future growth. Because of the anti-aircraft weapon density in the likely operating environment, the launching aircraft was required to release the weapon from a safe stand-off distance and at either medium or low altitude, whilst flying at supersonic speeds.
As a final requirement, logistics support and maintenance had to be very simple.
Five submissions were received for the AAAW programme; Thorn EMI, Hunting Engineering, Texas Instruments, British Aerospace Dynamics and GEC Marconi. Hunting Engineering and Texas Instruments both proposed a dispenser with guided sub-munitions, the SWAARM and Griffin 38 respectively. Thorn entered a modified version of the BL755 called TAAWS that used rocket boosted sub-munitions to increase the range and British Aerospace Dynamics proposed a modified version of the ASRAAM air to air missile called Typhoon.
The July 1996 winning bid was submitted by GEC Marconi who teamed with Boeing to create the Brimstone missile. GEC Marconi later became part of Alenia Marconi Systems and in turn was absorbed into MBDA Missile Systems.
Given that studies were initiated in 1982 and a system not selected until 1996, a mere 14 years later, the capability gap was significant.
In Service Date was initially predicted to be 2001.
Initial airborne carriage trials were conducted in 1998 and a year later, firing trials were started in the USA, these unarmed tests being concluded a couple of years later in 2001. Further testing continued in the UK including proving the MIL-STD 1760 interface used to transmit data between the missile and a launch aircraft.
The video below shows later live testing;
A 2002 Parliamentary answer revealed;
The advanced air-launched anti-armour weapon project, BRIMSTONE, has approval to spend up to £849 million, but is currently forecast to spend some £809 million
In 2003, technical problems and launch aircraft availability delayed the in service date
The entry into service of the Brimstone, air launched anti-armour weapon has been delayed because of technical factors that have emerged during the development and trials of the missile and its production. A revised date is currently under review.
Brimstone finally entered service with the RAF on the 31st of March 2005, 23 years after the original work on a replacement for the BL755.
A subsequent 2010 Parliamentary answer revealed the development costs of Brimstone and Dual Mode Brimstone
Quentin Davies (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Ministry of Defence; Grantham and Stamford, Labour)
The cost of developing the original Brimstone Missile System was £370 million. Dual Mode Seeker (DMS) Brimstone was developed as a variant of the original Brimstone system. Development costs specifically for the DMS variant amounted to about £10 million.
One of Brimstones principal problems was that the world changed around it.
With the Cold War over and the likelihood of massed armour attacks through Germany rather unlikely it was a classic Cold War Dinosaur.
Still, it was a bloody clever one.
Design
Although Brimstone has a common design root as the Hellfire missile it very definitely is NOT a modified Hellfire, with almost no commonality between the two, the guidance fins being the only common component. The G loading, surface friction and speeds involved with supersonic launch made the engineering much more challenging.
The rocket motor accelerates to supersonic speed in less than three seconds and is designed to boost and coast, increasing range and reducing optical and infra-red signatures, which is important when considering counter fire and the deployment of countermeasures. Launch can be from any altitude, including extreme low altitudes.
Brimstone Flight Profile
A triple launching pylon allows three Brimstones to be carried per position and Tornado was designed to carry 4 such pylons. With three weapons fitted the pylon weighs 235kg.
Brimstone 3 Round Launcher
At 48.5kg and 1.8m long it is a compact weapon and has a tandem warhead to defeat reactive armour. The 300g precursor warhead is tilted at a downward angle to make it more effective against reactive armour and the main warhead weighs 6.2kg.
Brimstone cutaway
Brimstone shipping container
The really clever part of Brimstone though is the guidance system.
Operating at the near optical wavelength of 94 Ghz the radar seeker provides a very high resolution radar image of the target that allows a number of target recognition algorithms to determine whether a return is a tank (and what type) or a tree or building. It is this target recognition that provides the autonomy and allows the launch aircraft to turn away as soon as the weapon is released, leaving the missile to get on with the job. Using a millimetric radar system also confers immunity from target obscuration due to weather and light conditions. The radar has a very narrow emission angle to reduce signatures and the possibility of jamming.
The missile also has a number of attack modes and can exclude low value soft skinned targets, attack vehicle columns in salvos or exclude certain areas. When attacking an area, the multiple missiles in a ripple launch spread out to fly side by side so they impact targets at the same time. If the target is a column the missiles will fly one behind the other, again, all impacting at the same time.
To provide even greater flexibility, the missile can receive targeting information from other platforms, ASTOR for example, proceeding on an indirect flight path to avoid terrain and mask the launch aircraft.
Once launched, the missile is fully autonomous, more on this later.
Part of the development path for the original Brimstone was a different seeker, different warhead and increasing the target set to include maritime targets such as fast attack craft, RIB’s and small patrol vessels. At one stage it was proposed for the Sea Skua replacement. Brimstone was also proposed for the TRACER reconnaissance vehicle programme.
A Brimstone missile costs between £100k and £175k depending on whether development and support costs are included.
At this point it should be clear that Brimstone is a fantastically smart and capable weapon but with a rather limited set of circumstances in which it can be used and so was condemned by many as being wasteful.
Rebirth
In Afghanistan and Iraq, the RAF and FAA found itself without a low yield precision guided weapon with a man in the loop to satisfy stringent rules of engagement. The Maverick missile was available (and used) but it has a large warhead and so an Urgent Operational Requirement was initiated in 2007 that would see earlier plans for an additional guidance system for Brimstone implemented.
This was to be called the Dual Mode Brimstone.
Dual Mode Brimstone
300 first generation Brimstones were converted as part of the UOR (although 500 have now been delivered) with development costs in the order of £10 million.
500th Dual Mode Brimstone
The Dual Mode modifications include a semi active laser (SAL) seeker head and changes to the software but it retains the radar guidance capability.
The first operational sortie with a Dual Mode Brimstone was by the RAF in Iraq on 18th December 2008 and the first operational firing took place in June 2009 in Afghanistan.
Brimstone was used to excellent effect in Operation Ellamy in Libya where it was for many, one of the stand out weapon systems used.
There were a few minor problems with DM Brimstone but they were quickly resolved.
Tornado GR4 Prepares for Takeoff to Support UN Sanctioned No Fly Zone over Libya
Since the introduction of DM Brimstone MBDA has also resurrected earlier work on adapting Brimstone for use in the maritime environment. In a privately funded series of trials MBDA have confirmed the ability to use the multiple target engagement radar seeker to target a number of rapidly manoeuvring fast attack craft.
A semi active laser system can only be used for one target at a time which could be a critical issue when dealing with swarming attack craft.
Fitting the three round launcher to helicopters, naval vessels and costal defence sites has also be studied.
Brimstone 2 and SPEAR
In 2011 Dual Mode Brimstone was selected as the basis for the Selected Precision Effects at Range (SPEAR) Capability 2 requirement.
Selected Precision Effects at Range, or SPEAR, is an RAF programme that is part of the 2010 Team Complex Weapons enabling contract that comprises a number of requirements and partners including Thales, MBDA and Roxel among others.
The programmes are;
Fire Shadow Loitering Munition for the Royal Artillery which is expected to begin trials in Afghanistan this year
Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (Heavy) is a joint programme with the French for Anti Navire Léger. FASGW (H)/ANL that is expected to arm the Royal Navy’s AW159 Lynx Wildcat helicopter and the French Navy’s NH90 and Panther helicopters.
Selected Precision Effects At Range (SPEAR). SPEAR Capability 2 is a development of the Brimstone Dual Mode Urgent Operational Requirement and SPEAR Capability 3 is a longer range and heavier weapon
Future Anti-Surface Guided Weapon (Light), being developed by Thales Air Defence under the AP to arm the Royal Navy’s AW159 Lynx Wildcat helicopter.
Future Local Area Air Defence System/Common Anti Air Modular Missile has been recently confirmed as armament for the Type 23 frigate and subsequently, called Sea Ceptor, the Type 26. It will also meet the FLAADS (Land) requirement to replace Rapier.
Storm Shadow Capability Enhancement Programme. A joint UK/French joint programme to enhance the Storm Shadow and SCALP cruise missiles
SPEAR Capability 2 is a development of the Dual Mode Brimstone introduced as an Urgent Operational Requirement in 2008. Work for the Block 1 requirement commenced a few years ago but the latest variant will be introduced into service in 2013 as Brimstone 2, this time, into the core equipment programme.
Improvements are said to include an insensitive rocket motor and warhead, longer range, better accuracy, a modular airframe and software enhancements.
The modular design will also improve access to critical components for easier maintenance.
It is hoped of course that this latest development will improve export potential and Brimstone is destined for integration with Typhoon and the Joint Combat Aircraft, both of which should improve its export potential a great deal.
Brimstone on Typhoon
It would be good to see Brimstone 2 integrated with Wildcat and who knows, perhaps one day, it will be used as a Swingfire replacement in the land environment.
nice article td. Hopefully we can stick the course with this one i think it could have a lot of export sales. There’s a lot of growth with future upgrades and some interesting stuff being done now. A lot of it is done in the uk a good thing in such times.
its interesting that another British company is producing the one weapon system that is keeping the Brimstone from being an automatic world wide export success.
BAE and the 2.75 guided rocket is going to eat into Brimstone sales.
But its still a nice problem to have. Two British companies producing almost must have weapons? A real nice problem to have.
I’m really surprised that the USAF hasn’t bought the Brimstone yet. What gives? Additionally the Navy should be looking at it too. Are there some type of export restrictions that we don’t know about????
Aren’t you buying the Joint Air to Ground Missile Sol?
i thought it had been cancelled. i’ll check to make sure.
@ Sol re US purchases
NIH
it survives but is on an extended development cycle. REINVENTING the wheel is NOT cost effective.
buy this and be done with it.
x said:
“@ Sol re US purchases
NIH”
I say. fine. set up a partnership with Raytheon USA and build it under license.
sorry to kill comment space but those would look real nice underneath some Marine Corps Harriers and would give a single plane one helluva punch against dozens of targets. even our drones would be more effective. i like it.
Interesting that we buy our Paveway IV’s off Raytheon.
Wonder what Boeing would think of US forces buying Brimstone from the UK, although strictly speaking, MBDA is headquartered in France. I think BAE owns just over a third of them though.
Most of the integration work has already been done on Harrier as well
UK Air Launched weapons are actually something a bright spot in the darkness, sustained development of Meteor, ASRAAM, Paveway IV, Brimstone and Storm Shadow (ignoring its relative cost compared to TACTOM) has given the RAF an impressive array of weapons for its shrinking fast-jet fleet.
Bob
I agree about the weapons we have available. You could add in dome of the sensore amd ew pods as well, It’s just a pitty the RAF seems to have neglected a budget to integrate them on anything other than tornado.
I think weapons like brimstone and sensors like scentinal also negate the effectiveness of heavy armor formations. If we are looking for capability gaps I suspect this is a prime area for savings. It’s a very diffierent world to 1991.
not so fast Martin. if anything, i think we can consider IFV’s and heavy wheeled APC’s as “infantry tanks”…regardless of how we classify them though you’re still going to see those types of formations all over the battle field.
against even an armed force like that found in Syria, you’ll find those formations guarded by fighter aircraft AND anti-air guns and missiles…and that doesn’t count tanks that can fire against aircraft, the wall of small arms that will be fired etc.
additionally while i like the Sentenel i wonder how effective these systems will be in contested air space (the same applies to UAVs). once these systems are tested against even a moderately capable foe then we’re going to really be operating in only a COIN type environment and that is unlikely to be repeated…at least for the rest of this generation.
@ Solomon – I agree with you in part. However we in the Uk are desperatley looking for capabilities to cut. While I don’t doubt the effectivness of the MBT I would rather cut that than capabilities such as CAS MPA or Carrier Strike. All of which we seem to have done away with. Squadron of Tornados firing 16 Brimestones a time not to mention Apache and other platfoms such as the sensor fused munition would say to me that massed armoured formations are no longer the war winner they once were. I take your point about AA however the air focre has to deal with AA on every mission and hass tactics and technoligy to deal with it. Pretty hard to hit a high flying super sonic fighter with anything other than a radar guide missile.
That is why they have standoff weapons. Even a blindly fired 20mm can get lucky if you stray too close. One of the Tornados in GW1 was killed by a seriously unlucky Air Defence Artillery hit on one of it’s pylons, detonating the ordinance on the wing.
The current capabilities of ground based SAM systems actually makes it safer to go low than high. Most of the Cold War bombers were designed to go high hypersonic and countermeasures were already developed for it, so aircraft started going low.
It seems a must for the carrier operated F-35, but last I heard there were to plans for it. Anyone know any different.
@ Observer – I don’t think any one has done low level penetration work since 1991. It did not work to well then. Better to use SEAD techniques with cruise missiles and stealth aircraft.
Interesting article, but one correction methinks. The picture titled ‘Brimstone launch container’ should be ‘Brimstone shipping container’. At first I thought it might be a standard container as used with Rapier, but on closer study I think its too short for that.
Sol
I dont think the tank is dead, quite the opposite.
However, I think the day of the tank army is well and truely over.
The big massed tank battles we saw in India/Pakistan or Arab/Israel wars are just not that likely if anything like Brimstone is operating.
The range of the weapon simply expands the defended zone beyond whats realistic, especialy for as juicy a target as a big concentration of armour.
I think an air superiority Typhoon comes with 6 BVR’s, a pair of those fly in to drive off fighter cover, temporarily.
A second pair fly in carrying ALARM or a replacement (admitadly, not something in the budget at the moment) to force the air defences to shut down and then 4 more fly in carrying 72 Brimstones.
Launched at a moving tank regiment, even from 20km out, I cant imagine theres going to be that much left in fighting condition.
Or maybe not.
@DominicJ: we’ve heard stories since the 20′s about the death of the tank. While we would be better off talking about armoured forces, I think we should be cautious about the ability of autonomous wonder weapons to negate moving targets long term. The application of minimal stealth to an armoured vehicle makes the production of decoys far easier, just as on a stealthy aircraft EW sets can be physically smaller since high power jamming becomes self defeating.
Lock time and human evaluation of sensor data is still likely to be the determinant of success in practice for any weapon.
RE “Using a millimetric radar system also confers immunity from target obscuration due to weather and light conditions”
- the added bonus is that camo nets don’t work against that (as tanks and other armour are highly reflecting)
Good spot Obsvr, consider it corrected
@ WF – You are correct about predictions of the demise of the tank. However the anti tank weaponary NATO nations posses has had a quantum leap even just in the last 10 years with one or two aircraft able to take out an entire armoured colum. Meanwhile the tank has barley progressed in any meanignful way since the 1970′s beyond optics and fire control. I don’t think its irrelavent far from it but its far more of a niche capability that it was in the cold war mind set or in WWII. Its not a war winner in its own right. The man upstairs tells us we must shed capabilities to stay with in the budget and concentrate on whats relevant. Surley large heavy armour formations are not as vital to us as CAS, Special forces, Amphibious and air assault and a whole raft of other things we are more likley to use.
@martin: we *have* demonstrated large armoured formations are essential even in COIN operations. Both Basra and Al-Amarah would have been denied zones without them, and those hundreds of MRAP’s in Afghanistan are also armoured formations, required even in a static war. We are merely deciding what form those armoured formations will be in. Seeing as all those CR2′s have been bought, it would save almost nothing to take them out of service. Real savings lie in manpower reductions and changes in terms of service
WF
Indivudusal, or small groups, or tanks are, and will likely always remain, incredibly effective tools.
My point was that the chances of two tank armies fighting a meeting engagement on a plain are virtualy nil.
Certainly if the RAF (or possibly FAA) has any say in the matter anyway.
Camoflage, Decoys, Dispersion, all hamper airpower, but equaly, they all hamper the “armoured fist”.
Basra, Fallujah, Grozney and Afghanistan are all important lessons, but none were armour on armour battles, well, with possible exception of Basra, but my understanding was the Iraqi tanks were operated more as “bunkers” than tanks.
@DominicJ: agreed, I understand your point. Kursk will not be re-fought. That being said, any sort of major land action will be an armoured one, even against a hybrid opponent like Hizbollah. There is no way you can advance on the ground against serious opposition without being in an armoured box of one sort or another. What sort…ah well, that’s another question. That being said, having some already available, it’s a tad foolish to scrap them all. Better to hang on until we have whatever we need to replace them
I quite like the idea of something that is a moving bunker one day and a charging 62ton monster the next day. The Israelis lost very, very few tanks to Hezbolah-la-la-lah during the recent bun fight.
Through the mud and the blood to the greenfields beyond………
On a slightly different note I am reading with some horror that the RAF intends to scrap all its Tranche 1 Typhoons and will only operate a fleet of 107 Tranche 2 and 3 aircraft. The decision being taken because it’s too expensive to upgrade the other 55 to Tranche 3 standard.
This decision really beggars belief. After spending some £ 6.6 billion on these planes just a few years ago the RAF is preparing to turn them into paper clips or flog them for a few quid.
Surely even without the AESA Radar there is a role for these planes. The estimate for upgrading them to Tranche 3 standard is EUR 30 million apiece. So total upgrade would cost around EUR 1.5 bn admittedly that is expensive but you would not be able to acquire 53 other aircraft for that price. While the tranche 1 is not a purpose built bomber surely it is perfectly well suited even without the AESA radar to provide QRA over the FI or the UK mainland. It has an austere ground attack capability already. With integration of Brimstone and Paveway it would surely be a far better aircraft than say F35 for providing close air support in lower threat environments. Having two engines vs one with better speed acceleration and manuverablity would all suggest a decent low level close air support aircraft not unlike the Jaguar. I just can’t understand this decision. Is the RAF just so desperate to have a few more years of Tornado they will sell their sole.
@martin: yes, it’s nuts. The RAF’s raison d’etre is that it flys planes, so what sort of planes is all it ever thinks about…apart from how to get more planes from the other services
Why not give those 55 tranche 1 planes to the FAA, so they can get back into the fixed wing business. Use them to form two squadrons, so they can start training, doing A2A and A2G tactics, etc. Then when the F35 arrives the squadrons are already trained and just need to convert to type.
@ martin you might have read it but i doubt if any decision has been made yet. I’m sure on the internet it’s a done deal, but in reality theres some water to go under the bridge yet. I think there is also a LEP on the cards people forget how long the first ones have been around.
You did not highlight an important part of Brimstone TD. Not only can a salvo of Brimstones fly down a valley looking for a tanke/truck column to wipe out, they talk to each other and divvy up the targets, including priorisation. Send a mixed column down the road and a bunch of Tornados can keep launching stuff down it, with the missiles taking out the high priority targets first, ignoring the jeeps, and working their way down the scale autonomously.
In a large scale conflict, tt does mean the RAF chaps never even have to see what they shoot at. Just fire off their salvos in the general direction of the enemy and head back home while the missiles figure it all out themselves. I wonder if that BAE Systems thermo camo system would be able to confuse the seeker?
@Desk Jockey.
Now that is cool.
Does make you wonder what the UK’s Air Forces will be like in 50 years. In a UCAV service, when the bofffins who control them all sit in bunkers underground, will the RAF will be able to sustain its own identity and culture? Maybe it will just be subsumed into various joint squadrons.
Boots on the ground – yes.
Sailors at sea – yes.
Airmen in planes – not so sure.
Its the people who make the service not the kit – and RAF people in the UCAV world could be a very different set of people from today’s top brass.
>does mean the RAF chaps never even have to see what they shoot at
Welcome to TD JWD, yes, very cunning
Thanks, been a long time lurker and got a bit brave!
I’m intrigued by the use of brimstone on land and sea. TD mentioned a swingfire replacement; retractable launcher in back of a Warrior/ASCOD? Vertical launch?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-NoIdMJsazIs/Tl-_OaW98UI/AAAAAAAAAew/v8TEqFbs8gQ/s1600/LANCER+overwatch+with+Brimstone.jpg
Also, a single missile hellfire launcher has been developed for coastal units, and Hellfire has been test fired from a CB90 – as TD says Brimstone is a very different missile but couldn’t we do similar things?
http://images.defensetech.org/wp-content/uploads//2010/04/Hellfire-Missile-coastal-artillery.jpg
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/brimstone/brimstone9.html
A lot is being made of the anti-armour capability here, but the dual-mode capability has now made Brimstone the weapon of choice for striking point targets. Being pretty accurate and having a small warhead means collateral damage is low. It’s very useful for things such as removing a troublesome sniper. For bigger things, you’ve got PWIV that can be dropped vertically in through the roof of a house, and demolish the house whilst the buildings around it remain (fairly) undamaged.
But probably the best feature about Brimstone (and PWIV) is that they actually work and interface well with other bits of kit. Hence you’ve got the pic of GR4 above with PWIV, Brimstone and Litening (and ASRAAM) with the wingman carrying RAPTOR and PWIV. All in all it’s probably the best CAS platform flying today.
@ hannay. Yes it was thought of highly for cas by those that needed it. Which picture are you refering to?
@Topman: The last pic of GR4 in TD’s post shows it tooled up on the ground with PWIV, Brimstone and Litening. Personally I prefer this picture of a pair:
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/conflict/libya/coalition/united_kingdom/pictures/Tornado_fighter_bombers_British_Army_Air_Force_United_Kingdom_002.jpg
To get the most out of it (target rich environment), it would have to be fitted to a long endurance UAV.
@ Topman – As far as read the decision has been announced by the MOD to cut down to 107 after 2015. Obviously MOD decisions can be reversed (especially when Dave is in charge) however it seems like insanity to me to be considering something like this. I know the aircraft will be 10 – 12 years old and will need an upgrade but this is rediculous. Typhoons with R&D cost £125 million. That’s the same cost as a Type 23 frigate built at nearly the same time. Imagine if the RN decided to scrap the first batch of frigates because it could not put the new toys it wanted on them after 10 years. The RAF has to grow up in its procurment process. The days of the Spitefire and Hurrican are long gone. You can’t buy planes then scrap them because new variants come out. Not when you are spending £ 20 billion for 160 aircraft. Decisions like this as well as the move to scrap MRA4 lead me to suggest the only way to get the RAF back in control is to disband it and transfer its personel and assets to either the navy or army. The RAF is in the buisness of supporting the other services either on the ground or at sea given that and the lack of threat to the UK mainland a third service make little sense to me especially when they seem so hell bent on the bomber will always get through and strategic air power wins wars on its own mentallity.
Martin
Typhoon entered service in 2003 and went operational in 2006.
Typhoon has been using its fatigue life at approx 50% above that which was planned due to the stop start introduction. This has cause real problems with the tranche 1 jets and if current usage continued will finish there life after 16 years service you can extend that fatigue life but it won’t be cost free the us navy have the same problem with the super hornet as both have a 6000hrs life which is why its been increased to 8000 for f35 out of the box. Now you can never bring them to tranche 2 standard from a structures point of view. Remembering also that the newer tranche 2 jets will also need money spent on them if you want aesa and conformals ect. So what do you spend a finite pot of money on also considering from that initial tranch the majority are either training or trials a/c.
@ martin. That’s all well and good but where does the money come from vs defence taskings? It’s not as simple as one would think the aircraft are life ex they will have flown the maximum number of hours they designed for. It’s not about new toys. As to the rest, conspiracy theories know no bounds. Damned if we do and damned if we don’t.
Thanks Hannay, good (and impressive!) information.
Whereas this bit “To provide even greater flexibility, the missile can receive targeting information from other platforms, ASTOR for example” in the leading-in article raised a question with me
- as far as I know (could be wrong) one of the weaknesses of the otherwise brilliant Sentinel ASTOR is that everything will have to pass through the ground station…
Totally as an aside, when the decision to retire Sentinel was taken, I think this point was overlooked “The Sentinel system also has a valuable role in communications. The Ground Station currently provides the coalition forces with the only means of interoperation with JSTARS which will be lost when Sentinel is retired.”
i think but aren’t sure link 16 and similar systems can get around that. It seems a good chance that it is staying now and will be put in a joint army raf budget.
@ hannay nice picture find.
Welcome to TD Milner, I agree about putting it on a UAV but its not the only option.
I would like to see them onboard Wildcat, in a surface mount and on a vehicle
Hi Topman,
Interesting to see what shape that budget “will be put in a joint army raf budget” will take (is there such, or will it be in the new joint command?)
it’s joint in the sense that they both have to pay for it together. I think the control will be under 2 group.