SPEAR - Selectable Precision Effects At Range

timmymagic said:
submunitions in particular are no longer a thing for the UK...(and it doesn't really have the volume to make it worthwhile).
Click to expand...

How many smart AT submunitions like SMaRT or BONUS could you fit in one using basic GPS/INS for initial guidance? The diameter is close enough that you could use off-the-shelf submunitions and not have to reinvent the wheel.

Probably again this would overlap too much with the Brimstone use case, but it's the one submunition application that could make a little sense.
 
TomS said:
How many smart AT submunitions like SMaRT or BONUS could you fit in one using basic GPS/INS for initial guidance? The diameter is close enough that you could use off-the-shelf submunitions and not have to reinvent the wheel.

Probably again this would overlap too much with the Brimstone use case, but it's the one submunition application that could make a little sense.
Click to expand...
Good question but i would guess that around 3 maybe 4 could fit.
 
DWG said:
Plus Sea Spear (quad-packed in a Mk 41 or EXLs VLS cell as a counter-FIAC-swarm capability, though that seems to have been a Brimstone variant rather than Spear, with MBDA actually referring to it as Brimstone Sea Spear in some of their stuff seemingly aimed at the Poles.
Click to expand...

Sea Spear is a slightly re-programmed Brimstone 1 effectively, no real relationship with Spear (apart from the MMW from later Brimstone vaiants being in the Spear guidance package). It's never been Vertical Launched to my knowledge, just launched from the normal MBDA trials frame off a suspended 3 round Tornado launcher (the same set up that has been given to the Ukrainian's in truck mounted form). Sea Spear was likely to receive its first customer as Ukraine pre-war on the Patrol Vessels that were to be built by Babcock in Rosyth. No idea if that project will ever go ahead now.

There were 1 or 2 CGI images an age ago of a VL-Spear exiting a quadpacked canister in either Mk.41 or ExLS onboard a ship but that was it. No other imagery of the booster attached for example. If that were still to happen it would now be using the LPS missile.
 
Last edited:
Rather interesting article....explains some of the reasons for delays on F-35....not sure I agree with the mid-2030's part, suspect that is a deal breaker for the UK on the 'Tranche 2' buy of 27 F-35B. Also seems unaware of other developments on the Spear front in relation to Typhoon (Spain's recent order of Spear ground equipment for example..).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1858606512316494145
View: https://x.com/JonA2i/status/1858606512316494145


aerospaceglobalnews.com

Typhoon undertakes live firing test of MBDA’s Spear next generation miniature cruise missile - AGN

On 17 November 2024, the UK Ministry of Defence, Defence Equipment and Support and Luke Pollard MP announced that a first guided firing of the Spear (previously known as SPEAR 3, or SPEAR Capability 3) missile had taken place on 17 October.
aerospaceglobalnews.com aerospaceglobalnews.com
 
zjz said:
According to the factsheet, TJ150-1 is used in the MALD, while SPEAR3 uses TJ150-3 .... would like to have some ideas on the differences, but no information is available in public domain ....
Click to expand...

Suspect its mainly around repackaging the engine to fit better in Spear.
 
NMaude said:
So same performance different external form-factors?
Click to expand...
Sounds like it.

Like how the CFM56 engines have their accessory drives in two places, depending on whether the engine is destined for a 737 or an Airbus. The Airbus versions have their accessory drives on the bottom of the engine, where it's easily accessible. The 737 versions have their accessory drives moved to the sides of the engine, for ground clearance.
 
NMaude said:
So same performance different external form-factors?
Click to expand...

That would make sense....

But the one thing about TJ-150-3 that has never made sense to me is ITAR....the UK has an unstated policy of all air weapons being ITAR free due to US f**kwittery around Asraam and PWIV sales in the past. Every other air weapon we make is stated as ITAR free now (FCASW, Sea Venom, Asraam Blk VI, Meteor, Brimstone 3 etc etc). But for Spear we've managed to jam a US made engine in it....in a weapon where the US has a competing product so has an incentive to exercise its usual nonsense...

Hopefully at some point we'll see a PBS or RR/Safran engine replace the TJ-150-3...its not as if the UK hasn't had a huge history in small turbine engines...
 
timmymagic said:
That would make sense....

But the one thing about TJ-150-3 that has never made sense to me is ITAR....the UK has an unstated policy of all air weapons being ITAR free due to US f**kwittery around Asraam and PWIV sales in the past. Every other air weapon we make is stated as ITAR free now (FCASW, Sea Venom, Asraam Blk VI, Meteor, Brimstone 3 etc etc). But for Spear we've managed to jam a US made engine in it....in a weapon where the US has a competing product so has an incentive to exercise its usual nonsense...
Click to expand...
What does the US have that is a powered 100kg weapon? Stormbreaker/SDB2 is a glide bomb, not a powered missile.
 
Josh_TN said:
Yes, but target set and guidance are more or less equivalent, along with form factor. It’s easily the closest thing in US inventory. Probably anyone’s inventory. Not a lot of trimode weapons in the 250 lbs class out there.
Click to expand...
I can foresee a lot of countries writing their specs so that Stormbreakers don't have enough range.

And frankly, I could see the US doing some horse-trading to have a few SPEAR-3s in inventory just to have that longer range.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I can foresee a lot of countries writing their specs so that Stormbreakers don't have enough range.

And frankly, I could see the US doing some horse-trading to have a few SPEAR-3s in inventory just to have that longer range.
Click to expand...
I can't see the US adopting it. Unlike most nations they have multiple options for long range strike. SDBII and SiAW will cover most bases for them.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I can foresee a lot of countries writing their specs so that Stormbreakers don't have enough range.

And frankly, I could see the US doing some horse-trading to have a few SPEAR-3s in inventory just to have that longer range.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, since the Brits will have paid for integration. But still not likely. I suspect SiAW is the next step past SDB for the USAF.
 
timmymagic said:
It would be so close to Brimstone in capability that it wouldn't make sense in financial terms to do
Click to expand...

I think that there'd be some difference in capabilities as for one thing the SPEAR-3 has pop-out wings so it would have a much higher L/D ratio than a Brimstone so it would have a longer range. Also if it has a solid rocket-motor instead of a TJ-150 (Call the version SPEAR-3 Lite) you could have three different rocket-motor variants - boost only burn-profile, boost/sustain burn-profile and sustain only burn-profile depending on whether you wanted it ground-launched or air-launched.
 
NMaude said:
A turbojet powered SDB2 or a SPEAR-3 would be handy as they could loiter in the area.
Click to expand...

Realistically you're only going to get the engine running for 15-20 minutes with the fuel onboard (Spear-EW with no warhead, has 3 times the range so could loiter for c45 minutes, enugh to get a strike in and out). For a longer loiter you'd need some sort of IC engined arrangement, like the IAI Windbreaker.

NMaude said:
I think that there'd be some difference in capabilities as for one thing the SPEAR-3 has pop-out wings so it would have a much higher L/D ratio than a Brimstone so it would have a longer range. Also if it has a solid rocket-motor instead of a TJ-150 (Call the version SPEAR-3 Lite) you could have three different rocket-motor variants - boost only burn-profile, boost/sustain burn-profile and sustain only burn-profile depending on whether you wanted it ground-launched or air-launched.
Click to expand...

It would have longer range for sure but maybe not enough to make it worthwhile. Brimstone should reach out to 20km, LPS will handle moving targets at much longer ranges (and I suspect at a price to match). The reason why I'd personally be looking at a soft launch CAMM/Brimstone mashup would be for 20km to c80km range, to bridge the gap between Brimstone and LPS. In that range bracket you're more likely to see targets that will relocate fast, and in numbers so speed and cost matter. The soft launch brings so many other platforms into play as well. EDIT: But a rocket boosted SpearGlide, without propulsion, could have utility. I guess the question on cost might come down to which guidance package you used, the complex but still comparatively cheap Brimstone or E/O head or the more complex Spear package with all the benefits of Brimstone + data link, networking, SAR mode on the radar etc.

There is also the question of if we should stick MRUSW on a M26 style rocket to use on M270 as a cheap GLSDB equivalent...but there is only so much money to go around...and if we see all Spear variants listed above we'll be lucky...it will be an enormous shame if we don't as the whole family and shared 'Shape' approach has a lot to recommend. We really need to squeeze the investment in complex weapons for all its worth...
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom