Army bosses plan to buy drones that can be fired from VANS after Ukraine's devastating attack on Russia
Top Brass issued a request for a covert launcher that fits in a 'Sprinter truck or regular Transit van'.
The weapon, codenamed Project Volley, must be robust, simple to use, weigh no more than 275kg, and fire at least five drones in four minutes at speeds of 200kmph.
The MoD put out a message to industry, known as a 'notice for contracts', and will potentially give the launchers to Ukraine.
It said: 'The user will use the launcher in a high-threat environment with persistent enemy surveillance.
'Therefore it must create a minimal signature — acoustic, heat, visual when used, eg hiding in plain sight.'
It comes after Ukraine claimed to have destroyed at least 41 Russian aircraft on Sunday with 117 drones hidden on cargo trucks.
They were in pre-fabricated sheds that were loaded on to flatbed trucks and driven across Russia.
As they neared airfields, the roofs of the sheds flipped open and the drones took off.
They destroyed Tu-95 and Tu-22 long-range bombers and prized A-50 Beriev command and control aircraft.
Russia continues to launch drone strikes of its own, including one on a residential area in Kharkiv yesterday.
The MoD's notice stressed urgency by saying that it is not interested in solutions 'that will not be ready for UK field demonstration or testing in October'.
From tactical nuke to 7,600mph missile & 50k-troop assault…6 ways Putin could respond to Ukraine blitz after Trump call
The MoD said Project Volley was part of a £5billion investment in 'advanced new weapons' based on lessons learned from Ukraine.
It added: 'This investment will improve accuracy and lethality for our Armed Forces, while boosting UK export potential.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
13 minutes ago
- Reuters
UK regulator drops cases against Libor scandal traders after court ruling
July 25 (Reuters) - Britain's financial regulator said on Friday that it was dropping proceedings against Tom Hayes and revoking Carlo Palombo's ban from the financial service industry, after the country's top court overturned convictions of both former traders. Hayes, the first trader ever jailed for interest rate rigging, became the face of the global Libor scandal. He challenged his conviction at the Supreme Court, along with Palombo, a former Barclays trader (BARC.L), opens new tab who was found guilty in 2019 of manipulating Euribor, Libor's euro equivalent. The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) said it would take no further action against either individual.
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
France's top court annuls arrest warrant for Bashar al-Assad
France's highest court has cancelled an arrest warrant for the former Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad for complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity during the country's civil war. The Cour de cassation declared the warrant invalid under international law, which gives heads of state personal immunity from prosecution in foreign courts while they are in office. The judges ruled there were no exceptions, but said their decision did allow for a new arrest warrant to be issued now Assad was no longer a head of state. Since December 2024, Assad has been living in exile in Russia after rebels led by Turkish-backed forces took control of Syria. Mariana Pena, a senior legal counsel with the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI), said the ruling was a 'missed opportunity' for the court to make an exception on the waiving of immunity for heads of state accused of the most serious crimes, but added the campaign to bring Assad to justice would continue. A French court issued the international arrest warrant in November 2023 in response to two chemical weapons attacks in Syria. In the first, in August 2013, the banned gas sarin is believed to have killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children, in the district of Ghouta, in eastern Damascus. In the second, in April 2018, 450 people were injured in the towns of Adra and Douma. The case that led to the arrest warrant was brought by civil parties including survivors of the attacks, the Syrian Center for Media and Freedom of Expression and the OSJI. Its cancellation was initially sought by France's anti-terrorism office on the grounds of head of state immunity. Last year, the Paris court of appeal upheld the warrant following a request for annulment, only for the anti-terrorism office and the public prosecutors' office to lodge a fresh appeal. At the appeal hearing, the OSJI argued that immunity should not apply when leaders perpetrated grave crimes against their own population. France has previously issued international arrest warrants for three other senior Syrian officials, including the former leader's brother Maher al-Assad for complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Cour de Cassation did not rule on these warrants, which are still in effect. The sarin attack in 2013 almost led to US intervention in Syria's civil war. Barack Obama, then US president, had warned Assad that the use of chemical weapons would be a 'red line', but backed down from military action after Syria agreed to dismantle its chemical weapons. Sign up to Headlines Europe A digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week day after newsletter promotion In 2020, a report by the UN-aligned body that oversees chemical weapons use accused Syria of using sarin gas on the battlefield. The report was hailed by rights groups as a landmark moment with implications for war crimes investigations. The Syrian conflict began with protests and pro-democracy rallies in 2011 and escalated into civil war the following year. Up to 610,000 people are believed to have died.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on standards in politics: a golden reform opportunity squandered
A year ago, following Labour's election win and the Conservative rout, the new government's standing could hardly have been higher or its opportunities greater. The political field lay open, in ways that it only does after an election, for serious political reform. One of the most trenchant sections of Sir Keir Starmer's election manifesto had pinpointed 'a crisis of confidence in our political system'. Labour had accordingly promised 'a reset in our public life'. Twelve months ago, the voters gave permission to Sir Keir to do just that. Fatally, he failed to seize the opportunity. Instead, the chance to make radical change to Britain's government and politics has largely been squandered. As a result, the work of rebuilding confidence has become harder than ever, as the continuing rise of Reform UK makes clear. The government's new ethics and integrity commission, a manifesto promise, should have been launched decisively last year on a tide of post-election reforming commitment and goodwill. Instead, momentum was lost by the freebie furore and wider policy failures. Long overdue, the commission was quietly announced on Monday in a written parliamentary statement to MPs, which few of them are likely to have read, on the eve of the summer recess. It is false to claim, as the Conservatives did this week, that this was a Labour attempt to bury bad news. The Tories are in no position to talk, having so often trashed the existing standards regimes in recent years. But Labour should be ashamed. It should not have left things unaddressed for so long, so that the impetus for post-Tory reform and for rebuilt trust were wasted. The statement, published by the Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden, is fine as far as it goes. Uncertainty over whether the commission would be an oversight body for standards regulation, or would bundle up the work of established committees and regulators, has been resolved. It will mainly be the former, beefing up and replacing the committee on standards in public life (as advocated by Sir John Major) while leaving individual cases to a reduced number of regulatory bodies. The current advisory committee on business appointments will also be scrapped, with its ministerial and civil service arms enforced by separate bodies. As a tidying-up exercise, this all makes sense. The real problem is that a golden chance to reform the system in a watertight way has been passed up. The McFadden statement implies ministers want to avoid legislation to set up the commission. The result is that enforcement is not properly addressed or strengthened. The role of independent scrutiny, essential for public confidence, is left hanging. The statement leaves enforcement sanctions too vague. It is good that ex-ministers should 'be expected' to lose their severance pay if they take post-ministerial jobs that raise conflicts of interest. But what if that expectation is not fulfilled? Or if the rewards of such jobs are so high that the loss of severance pay is treated as a price worth paying? The system risks looking toothless. Cleaning up politics is not an optional priority. It is a compulsory one. These steps don't go far enough. Nor do they suggest a ruthless culture of ethical behaviour, led from the top, of the kind required. Mr McFadden's statement accepts that the changes will depend on the public's wider view of the work of politicians and government. That is indeed the problem. But there is not enough here to shift that dial.
