Britain eyes satellite laser warning system and carrier-launched jet drones The UK is pressing ahead with cutting-edge defense projects, the latest including research to protect satellites from laser attack and a technology demonstrator for a jet-powered drone to operate from Royal Navy carriers. According to Britain's Ministry of Defence (MoD), it is working with the UK Space Agency on ways to …
Starlink Militarization: Challenges and Responses to Space Intelligence and Information Security
‘Researchers at the National University of Defense Technology analyze the development of Starlink, SpaceX’s flagship satellite internet technology, its early connections with the U.S. military, and its uses on the battlefield in Ukraine. The authors argue that the United States is militarizing Starlink in ways that disrupt existing rules and norms governing the development and utilization of space-based technologies. They recommend Beijing track Starlink carefully, invest in developing and deploying domestic alternatives, and coordinate closely with fellow “socialist” countries to pare back Starlink’s global reach.’
"Satellites are a quiet success story for the UK, with the industry said to be worth £18.6 billion (about $25 billion)"
Following the links and onward, I find that 47% of the value of the UK "space sector" is down to domestic satellite TV, so basically Sky (and a few pen'orth of others). Sky are busy getting out of the satellite business by 2028 in favour of terrestrial IP, so I'll assert that the UK satellite/space industry is worth barely half of what government claim.
It's worse than that I think. They seem to have lumped the entire of Sky UK's revenue and employees into 'space sector' despite the fact Sky don't design, launch, operate or own their own satellites - they lease capacity from foreign companies - and much of their broadcast/broadband/mobile business is already satellite-free.
No wonder "Another key survey limitation is the continued non-response to the survey of the UK’s largest space organisations, including Sky UK". They're probably nonplussed about being sent a space sector survey. [ https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/size-and-health-of-the-uk-space-industry-2024/size-and-health-of-the-uk-space-industry-2024 ]
Meanwhile, Brexit is obviously rapidly eroding the genuine British satellite business.
Brexit, obviously? How so? And rapidly eroding the business? The vote was almost 10 years ago and split was over 5.
Contrary to Brexit, the NAO say the biggest issue is the lack of a national space strategy.
https://www.ft.com/content/2a6ea8b5-b61c-4e7b-959e-a6ebeca22fa7
If you read the survey they make the point that space contracts are very long and as of 2024 the Brexit effect is therefore only just beginning to bite, with the loss of Galileo being particularly painful.
Still, I'll retract the 'rapidly' qualifier because the share of GDP the survey attributes to space sector GVA has only fallen from 0.27% to 0.25% between 2016 and 2024. It's hard to interrupt that figure when the survey is partly propaganda, including Sky etc, and when GDP growth in general has also been eroded by Brexit, but the sector is certainly not the picture of world-leading health some would have us believe.
We've never had a 'National Space Strategy' before. All that means is that the sector could be larger if the government pumped huge amounts of tax-payer money into it. What a surprise. I'm not completely against picking industry champions and investing in them at national level but it needs to be done where there's a credible competitive advantage, and Brexit has undeniably damaged any advantage we may have had in the satellite industry.
And the national strategies we come up with are always somehow on the cheap, involving pennies of government investment magically stimulating pounds of private investment. If that equation worked then the private investment would already be there. We need to invest the pounds, sensibly, and treat any subsequent stimulated investment as a bonus.
Its a drone to do air surveillance, currently this is undertaken by a Merlin helicopter with the Crowsnest radar fit... Maximum height and endurance is pretty low - if you wanted an effective persistent airborne early warning asset you wouldn't use an expensive helicopter to do it, but for historical reasons that's where things are.
So a fixed wing alternative is a fine idea, but getting the safety case for autonomous landings approved will be a few years coming....
“For historical reasons”…. same as the dumb decision to not equip UK carriers with ‘Top Gun’’ like catapults and hobble them with the almost entirely useless F35B aircraft that have cascaded other compromises and capability shortfalls (compared to US Navy).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
