So, guesstimates of the cost. Over £250k each? Over £500k?

Sounds like some seriously dodgy procurement shit could be crawling out of the woodwork. Anyone want some PPE?

There is no justification for MoD not to reveal the procurement process.

No excuse for MoD to not set a clear price point. A $5000 drone isn't just lethal to soldiers, it's also lethal to defense budgets which shoot down $5000 drones with $1,000,000 missile interceptors.

The Strait of Hormuz is closed because no sane person will risk a ship filled with 2 million barrels of $100/bbl crude oil when $1500 mines are floating in the water.

Strait of Hormuz is closed because of Russian asset Trump, helped son of Ayatollah get rid of his nuisance of a father, got the armaments depleted (so nobody has anything to send to Ukraine) and hiked the prices of energy to benefit Putin.

Closed by cheap mines and cheap drones. Lloyds can do the math on $200 million in insured oil spilling out into the Gulf and creating an environmental catastrophe.

If war is expensive for us and cheap for our enemies then the winning strategy is to wear us down financially. We'd rather our tax dollars be spent constructively back home, not pissed away on foreign wars of choice.

Yes that is par for the course. Krasnov/Trump role was to deplete Western capability and Iran/Russia part was to inflict economic damage on the West. They are all working together.

Israel is there just for fun.

The enemy is running your government.

I suppose it's one way of looking at it. You might have to turn your head to one side and squint a bit, of course.

Do you know that they did/didn't?

The only things I've seen on price, is that they plan to scale up production, and be able to sell the drones at a few tens of thousands per unit. But initial costs are going to be higher, while they don't have economies of scale.

Saw one source from DSEI exhibition that they're aiming for £20k a round. And £40k a round for Starhammer, the upgraded rocket-powered version.

This is another venture capital backed start-up moving into the defence industry. There's a lot more of it going on in the US. It could be good. Get new tech fast, in a fast-moving industry - plus give the old skool defence contractors a bit of a kicking. Alternatively they're a scam designed to first fleece the VCs of their cash, then fleece the tax-payers, then ideally last long enough for an IPO to fleece the shareholders.

But they have a flying product. A product that's been tested and seen by the MoD - and they've got a contract where they have to produce a certain amount within 6 months to get the full payment. And the point about the drone world, at the moment, is that most drones are basically obsolescent within a year - maybe much quicker - so make 'em quick and get 'em used. Then upgrade the design and make more. Until development slows down, you actually want a tech move-fast-and-break-things attitude.

The defence incumbents are all about doing massive amounts of paperwork to prove the supply-chain meets all targets, that they have alternative suppliers, plus that their kit can survive 15 years on the shelf, then getting carried around by careless squaddies, then spend some time in a bog, in the arctic, and still work first time every time. That model doesn't fit as well with rapidly iterating drone designs, in a rapidly changing battlefield.

This also means the MoD have got to be agile, and try buying a few different things. Which inevitably means that some programs will fail. Doesn't mean they were a scam, but does make that happening more likely.

We've also got the Octopus drone, that's supposed to be ten times cheaper than Skyhammer - but shorter range. That looks to be a Ukrainian design, that's being built in a factory in the UK - I assume funded by us - and then the drones sent back to Ukraine. When production ramps up, we may want some as well.

Plus the Iran war showed that the MoD had rapidly purchased Rapid Sentry - because it's been deployed out there, defending our bases and some of our allies. That's a combination of the existing Starstreak and Martlet launcher with some anti-drone electronic warfare. Martlet is about £50k a pop, and has a range under 5km. Although it can engage everything from slow-moving aircraft to drones, armoured vehicles, bunkers and attack boats. Skyhammer this is 5-10 times the range.

move-fast-and-break-things

Isn't that the whole point of the weapon?

A turbojet sounds unduly complex for a single use device.

I suspect it is the most effective way to get the range/speed needed for this type of interceptor as while there are fast battery powered drones they have very limited range while turbojets are very easy and cheap to produce for single use systems. You can take a lot of shortcuts with materials to make them lighter/cheaper and they will still last long enough to do their job as 'good enough' really is good enough in these instances

I was thinking more along the lines of rocket propulsion.

I suspect it is the most effective way to get the range/speed needed for this type of interceptor as while there are fast battery powered drones they have very limited range while turbojets are very easy and cheap to produce for single use systems.

Also COTS, eg-

https://www.align-trex.co.uk/nitro-engines-and-spares/jet-engines.html

But also whether the manufacturers of those mini-turbines can supply in sufficient quantities given the demand from Ukraine, Russia, China, Israel, Iran etc etc. Which I guess is also a supply chain issue if these microjets are made in China, and China decides not to sell. But like you say, it's also a need for speed given things like Russia's Geran drones moved from lawnmower engines to turbines some time ago, increasing speed, range and allowing flight & attack profiles that are harder to intercept.

There are 32-bit MCUs in disposable vapes now, so...

It's a matter of scale.

Doctor Syntax,

A turbojet sounds unduly complex for a single use device.

I believe the answer is that it's supposed to be cheaper than a rocket.

Although, I'd have thought that something that's going to get humped around the battlefield by squaddies, needs to be as shock-tolerant as possible - hence a solid rocket motor ought to be better.

On the other hand, it may be that solid rockets are currently a bottleneck in weapons production/procurement - and so the idea of getting lots of stuff rapidly built might require looking at alternatives, while also building up our rocket production.

I'm sure I've come across a blurb about them, that their plan is to get a 700 km/h jet drone first, and then up the range and speed with a later rocket-powered model that shares the same controls and warhead.

I'm sure I've come across a blurb about them, that their plan is to get a 700 knot jet drone first, and then up the range and speed with a later rocket-powered model that shares the same controls and warhead.

Or combine the two. There's videos out of Ukraine showing both sides usiing JATO drones, so small rocket motors to get the drone moving. There's also low-tech solutions using compressed air rams, or just elastic. Problem for the West is a lot of the Russian & Iranian developments are being shared amongst people we'd probably rather not have them.

Funny how this is misused. Sounds like two chaps got together in the pub and figured "You know what, let's do some drones, yay!"

HMS Dragon.....the ONLY one of six that actually (sort of) works!

Aircraft carrier where the propellor falls off at the first attempt to sail under power!

Common denominator -- Babcocks!

Alleged common denominator -- large brown envelopes changing hands!

......and now we hear about "drones"....................

Yup....."...the contract has yet to be signed........"