Hypersonic weapons could keep Britain safe – if we’re willing to invest

8 April 2025, 07:51

The Ministry of Defence announced that British scientists recently completed a ‘major hypersonic propulsion test’ in the United States.

Last May the Ministry of Defence (MOD) signed a new framework, with up to £1 billion of funding over seven years to develop  a sovereign hypersonic strike capability by 2030. The recent test highlights two things: firstly the need to invest more in defence to avoid falling behind on military technology and secondly on the benefits and limits of ‘sovereign’ capability.

A number of the United Kingdom’s key allies and adversaries have introduced  hypersonic weapons programmes, with some weapons already in service. The US, the People’s Republic of China, and Russia are those with the most mature programmes – although serious doubts remain about some claims coming from Moscow (and to an extent Beijing) – and several others have projects underway, including France and Japan.

Hypersonic weapons, broadly speaking, are missiles which can sustain speeds in excess of Mach Five (with Mach One representing the speed of sound), within the Earth’s atmosphere. The ability to travel at such speeds makes them difficult to intercept and ensures they can reach targets over great distances very quickly.

The caveat to these impressive capabilities for now is their cost; the US invests several billion dollars each year in development, and individual missiles will cost several times more to manufacture than slower subsonic and supersonic missiles.

Given their capability, hypersonic missiles enable Britain to deter its adversaries and remain an important partner to its allies, as outlined recently by the Council on Geostrategy. If the UK pursues this, given competing demands, it is crucial more is invested in defence.

But how sovereign should Britain's hypersonic weapons be? The recent test encapsulates the situation perfectly. The UK wants a sovereign capability but lacks a lot of hypersonic expertise and infrastructure, something which will be partly rectified by some of the £1 billion fund. One of the key areas is in testing facilities, hence why the test took place in the US.

However, this is not necessarily a bad thing for Britain. It can leverage much of the work the Americans have already done to help expedite development, something which AUKUS Pillar II is designed to do. Further to this, efforts should be made to help British firms enter the American hypersonic supply chain, which would benefit from greater capacity.

The final consideration is timelines. Given the pace of geopolitical change and the military capabilities hypersonics can give, Britain should ask itself whether 2030 is soon enough. Should it develop now to build later, or build now and develop from there? If the latter, then encouraging American firms to onshore hypersonic production in the UK should be explored.

________________

William Freer is Research Fellow (National Security) at the Council on Geostrategy.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email views@lbc.co.uk