Hypersonics

As our new Government begins its Strategic Defence Review in earnest, one of its key considerations will be about what future technologies the UK can afford in order to keep the country safe and protect its citizens in the face of increasing threats from new technologies being employed by adversaries both near and far.

These decisions will need to be made through the prism of the new Government’s commitments to alliances such as NATO and AUKUS, support to the UK’s defence industry and sensible management of the nations’ finances.

The AUKUS defence and security alliance is focused on developing a range of advanced capabilities, sharing technologies and increasing interoperability between the armed forces of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. This alliance aims to “foster deeper integration of security and defence-related science, technology, industrial bases, and supply chains”. This approach will also bring financial benefit to the economies of all three partner nations.

Britain’s defence industry is already contributing to this alliance through its building of submarines for the UK and Australia, but I know it can do so much more in terms of technology development and ‘friend-shoring’.

For this reason I welcomed the publication in August of the UK’s AUKUS Nations Open General Licence, alongside an exemption to the ITAR granted by the United States, and Australia’s license-free provisions. These decisions will allow freer exchange of sovereign technology and capability between the three partner nations, opening up a much bigger market to suppliers, big and small, in all three markets.

One of the technology areas the UK has previously stated it is keen to develop as a capability is Hypersonics. There is already a framework in place which provides up to ￡1 billion of funding over seven years, and the stated aim is to have a solution by 2030.

But as the latest policy paper from the Council on Geostrategy highlights, the current level of funding is trying to do too much with too little in the face of competing demands for investment within the British Armed Forces. It concludes that to meet the 2030 milestone, the UK should consider purchasing (or if possible licence produce) hypersonic weapons in the short-term.

This is not to say that a British hypersonic capability is not possible, just that it might need to be achieved differently. Indeed, as posited by my colleague Tim Cahill in an interview in the Daily Telegraph in July, Britain could pioneer the development of some hypersonic missiles and Lockheed Martin could partner with British supply chain partners in their manufacture.

As Tim pointed out, the AUKUS framework enables each of the three partners to find “gaps” in capability that need to be plugged and choose to be the ‘master’ of a particular area, supporting all three nations’ needs. He suggested that the UK could look at developing a Hypersonic capability based on an already tested prototype and boost UK industry by supplying all three partner nations.

These are the smart, cost-effective ideas that industry can bring to the table, in partnership with Government and supported by legislation and policy making. In the case of Hypersonics, UK industry could be at the forefront of its development for three nations at least, and any investment in developing this capability here in Britain would be paid back into the economy many times over.