June 6, 2022, 8:58 in the morning, London time. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace stood up and announced something Britain had never done before. The United Kingdom was about to give a foreign country a weapon system the Royal Artillery itself only had 44 of, a tracked armored rocket launcher built on a stretched Bradley chassis firing GPS guided rockets that could put a 90 kg warhead through a designated window from 80 km away.
The British called it the 70 km sniper. The Ukrainians would soon learn why. And the Russians, with their much advertised S-400 air defense systems guarding the rear of the invasion, were about to discover something deeply uncomfortable. The most expensive surface-to-air missile system in the Russian inventory could not stop a 227 mm rocket flying at two and a half times the speed of sound.
Not in theory, not in practice. This is the story of the M270B1, the launcher that proved armored tracks beat wheels, precision beat saturation, and British engineering still solves problems nobody else can. To understand why the M270B1 matters, you have to understand the problem it solved. The original M270 entered British service in 1989.
In Operation Granby in 1991, British and American batteries fired roughly 6,000 rockets at Iraqi positions. The unguided M26 rocket carried 644 cluster submunitions. A single 12-rocket salvo scattered over 23,000 bomblets across 1 square kilometer. British soldiers nicknamed it the grid square removal service.
Iraqi prisoners, according to Lockheed Martin’s corporate history, called it steel rain, though some later reporting suggests that phrase actually originated with the gunners themselves. The launcher worked. The problem was, by the 2000s, cluster munitions were being outlawed under the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which Britain signed in 2008.
By December 2013, the United Kingdom had destroyed its last bomblet. The Royal Artillery now had a launcher and no rockets worth firing. The solution came from a single round, the M31 Guided Rocket in its unitary warhead variant designated M31A1 replaced area saturation with precision. Britain became the first export customer in September 2005.
The rocket carries a 90 kg high explosive blast fragmentation warhead with a tri-mode fuse. The crew can select proximity air burst, point detonating, or delayed penetration before firing. Guidance is GPS aided inertial with small canards on the nose providing terminal control. Operational range is greater than 70 km with the practical envelope extending out to 84 km. Then there is the accuracy.
The contractor specification is under 15 m circular error probable. The actual figure recorded by the United States Director of Operational Test and Evaluation in fiscal year 2015 firings was a median miss distance of 2.1 m across 17 successful shots. Lord Drayson, Britain’s Minister for Defense Procurement, described it in 2005 as a powerful unitary warhead delivered with pinpoint accuracy giving the Royal Artillery its first ever long-range precision rocket.
Now the launcher itself. The British variant is not the American M270A1. It is something different. The B1 designation marks an enhanced armor package and Lockheed Martin’s own product card contains a sentence that justifies the entire program. The card states that the M270B1 enhanced armor package protected its crew from a direct improvised explosive device attack during operations in Iraq.
That is not marketing. That is a documented combat outcome. The British Army learned in Iraq and Afghanistan that lightly armored vehicles did not survive the new threat environment. The B1 was the answer. Lockheed Martin delivered the first to the British Army in September 2006. By February 2007, launchers were deploying to Helmand province with theater entry armor, mine protective seats, and night vision systems fitted.
The industrial work was performed at Lockheed Martin United Kingdom in Ampthill, Bedfordshire. This was not a simple import. It was a British modification program. That chassis is the M993 carrier, a stretched M2 Bradley fighting vehicle hull. On top sits the M269 launcher loader module.
Two pods, six rockets each, 12 rockets total, reloaded by integrated boom winches without the three-man crew ever leaving the armored cab. The vehicle weighs roughly 25 tons combat loaded, hits 64 km/h, and runs 483 km on a tank of diesel. Power comes from a Cummins VTA903 turbo diesel rated at 500 horsepower. Lockheed Martin describes the cross-country capability as comparable to that of the M1 Abrams main battle tank.
A full 12 rocket salvo can be ripple fired in under a minute. The crew of three sits forward in a fully enclosed armored cab with the improved fire control system and the improved launcher mechanical system, which between them cut aim time by 83% and reload time by 38% compared to the original. Commodore Mark Roberts, then head of capability deep target attack, summarized it in a single line.
Guided MLRS coupled with the universal fire control system has given us an extremely precise all-weather capability. Now, before we get to what happened when Ukraine fired this thing in anger, if you are enjoying this deep dive into British engineering, hit subscribe. It takes a second, costs nothing, and helps the channel grow.
All right, let us get into the combat record. The Ministry of Defense press release, published at 8:58 that June morning, quoted Wallace directly. The United Kingdom stands with Ukraine in this fight and is taking a leading role in supplying its heroic troops with the vital weapons they need to defend their country from unprovoked invasion.
The release confirmed launchers would strike targets up to 80 km away with pinpoint accuracy and that M31A1 munitions would be supplied at scale. The decision was coordinated closely with the United States which had announced HIMARS 5 days earlier. Three British M270B1 launchers arrived in Ukraine on July 15, 2022.
On August 11th, Wallace announced a second batch of three. Six launchers in total. Ukrainian crews trained at Larkhill with 26 Regiment Royal Artillery. Round counts remain classified but Britain has since committed 800 million pounds over the next decade to guided rocket replenishment. Then came the strikes. By July 16, 2022, Ukraine claimed 30 Russian logistics hubs destroyed.
General Mark Milley, chairman of the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters on July 20th that to date those systems had not been eliminated by the Russians and he knocked on wood every time he said something like that. He later confirmed Ukrainians had struck over 400 targets with devastating effect steadily degrading the Russian ability to supply their troops and command their forces.
On July 11th, Ukraine struck the Nova Kakhovka ammunition depot. At least six rockets ignited secondary explosions so violent that NASA’s VIIRS satellite sensors were overloaded by the heat signature. From July through November, a sustained guided rocket campaign systematically hold the Antonivka bridge over the Dnipro river.
Russian forces were pushed onto pontoons and ferries. Roughly 30,000 Russian troops found themselves isolated on the west bank of Kherson before their withdrawal in November. Russia claimed Pantsir intercepts. Satellite imagery showed at least 16 fresh impact holes by August 25. On August 14, 2022, a Wagner Group headquarters in Popasna was destroyed geolocated from a deleted Telegram post by a Russian war reporter 6 days earlier. The strike is verified.
Casualty figures are reported, but unconfirmed. Ukraine deliberately obscures which platform fires which strike, so attributing this one to a British launcher rather than an American one is impossible from open sources. The strategic effect was captured by the Royal United Services Institute in its meat grinder paper.
Following the destruction of Russian command and control infrastructure in July 2022, the Russian military withdrew major headquarters out of range of guided rocket strikes and placed them in hardened structures. Russian military blogger Igor Girkin admitted that Russian air defense systems had turned out to be ineffective against massive strikes by HIMARS missiles.
A Washington Post interview with a Ukrainian brigade commander, but the tactical effect in human terms after a single strike on a Russian ammunition depot, his unit was now seeing about one concussion casualty per week. Before the strike, it had been two to three per day. Which brings us to the S-400.
The Russian Triumph system was designed to kill strategic bombers, fighters, AWACS, aircraft, and cruise missiles at altitude with engagement geometry tuned to longer burn, higher flying threats. The guided rocket attacks the gap in that envelope. The 227-mm rocket flies a quasi ballistic profile, hits terminal speed around Mach 2.5, reaches a lower apogee than tactical ballistic missiles like Iskander, and crosses 80 km in roughly 90 seconds.
A 12-rocket salvo arrives almost simultaneously with a small radar cross-section and a steep terminal descent. The shorter-range Pantsir S1 has a missile envelope of only 1 to 12 km, leaving almost no reaction window. Global Defense Corp summarized it directly. The S-400 was unable to track Mach 2.
5 HIMARS rockets in Ukraine despite having more than 90 seconds of engagement window on paper. The first ever loss of an S-400 launcher to a guided rocket strike came in November 2022. On June 3, 2024, a complete S-400 system was destroyed in Belgorod. The 92N6 engagement radar pierced by tungsten fragments. Russian propaganda has worked overtime to deny all of this.
By December 8th, 2022, Russian official claims totaled 44 HIMARS launchers destroyed, more than NATO had delivered in total. Wagner founder Yevgeny Prigozhin, no friend of Ukraine, ridiculed his own ministry, joking that judging by what was written, Russia would soon be advancing on aliens, and that the Earth had already been destroyed five times over.
The first Oryx confirmed combat loss of any HIMARS launcher came on March 5, 2024, 21 months after introduction, from an Iskander strike, not air defense. The genuine threat has not been the S-400. It has been Russian electronic warfare. R-330Zhitel, Pole-21, and Krasukha-4 jamming systems began degrading guidance accuracy in 2023.
United States and United Kingdom software updates partially restored performance, and a December 2023 contract initiated retrofit of M-code capable GPS receivers from fiscal year 2027 onwards. The Royal United Services Institute documented that Excalibur artillery shell accuracy dropped from 70% to 60% over a year. Guided rockets were partially affected, but more resilient, because as the report put it, these problems could be overcome by layering effects.
This brings us to the comparison that matters most. The M270B1 and the American HIMARS fire identical rockets. They make opposite design tradeoffs. HIMARS is wheeled, soft-skinned, one pod, six rockets, 16 tons, built for C-130 air transport. The M270B1 is tracked, armored, two pods, 12 rockets, 25 tons, built to survive what the lighter platform cannot.
In Ukraine, all confirmed HIMARS combat losses came from drones or ballistic missiles, not from artillery duels. That is the armored cab earning its design rationale. The tracked chassis also matters for off-road dispersal in Ukrainian mud during the spring and autumn thaws. Against Russian rocket artillery, the British weapon is in a different class entirely.
The BM-30 Smerch can throw a 300 mm rocket 70 to 90 km, but with a circular error probable around 150 m. That is a saturation weapon, not a sniper. The newer Tornado-S claims similar range with GLONASS guidance, though combat performance in Ukraine has been largely cluster saturation rather than demonstrated precision.
The British recapitalization program transforms the launcher into something more dangerous still. Lockheed Martin is upgrading the United Kingdom fleet to the M270A2 configuration, with completion in December 2030. The first two upgraded launchers entered live-fire testing at White Sands Missile Range in February 2026.
The A2 adds a 600 horsepower engine, an improved armored cab with energy-absorbing seats, and the common fire control system shared with HIMARS. Critically, it makes the launcher compatible with extended range guided rocket, which extends range to 150 km, and with the Precision Strike Missile, which reaches 499 km, and fits two missiles per pod.
The Precision Strike Missile saw its first combat use in March 2026. The British fleet is expanding, heading towards 75 to 85 launchers by 2030. The Royal Artillery operators are 26 Regiment Royal Artillery at Larkhill, 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery at Albemarle Barracks, and 101 Northumbrian Regiment Royal Artillery, the only Army Reserve unit on the system.
All three are grouped under the first deep reconnaissance strike brigade combat team. Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders, called it Britain’s 1937 moment, the start of a long-range fires transformation. Return now to where we started, Wallace at the dispatch box. Six armored tracked launchers offered to a country fighting for its survival.
12 rockets per launcher, 90 kg warheads, 2.1 m miss distance at 80 km range. A weapon Russian air defense was never designed to catch and could not catch. A weapon that pushed Russian headquarters dozens of kilometers rearward, that isolated 30,000 troops on the wrong side of a river, that turned the summer of 2022 into the moment Ukraine seized the initiative.
British engineers took an American chassis, added British armor, integrated British fire control, and delivered something that survived a direct improvised explosive device hit in Iraq. Then they handed six of them to Ukraine, started spending 800 million pounds to replace what they gave away, and began upgrading the remaining fleet to launch missiles 499 km down range.
That is not luck. That is innovation under pressure, producing a weapon that worked when it mattered most.
QQ4 Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The friendship began on a live television program in November of 1986 in the 11 seconds after Bob Dylan called Keith Richards music derivative on camera. Keith Richard’s response to that assessment, one sentence said without anger, without performance, with the specific directness of a man who has nothing to prove and knows it made Bob Dylan laugh.
Then made Bob Dylan go quiet. then made Bob Dylan say two words that people who know Bob Dylan say he almost never said to anyone. This is the story of those 11 seconds and the 40 years that followed them. The program was a live music interview special broadcast on an American network on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The format was simple.
Two musicians, a host, an hour of conversation about music and the state of it. The producers had assembled the pairing of Bob Dylan and Keith Richards with the specific calculation of television producers who understand that two people with equally strong and potentially incompatible views about what music is and what it should do will produce better television than two people who agree about everything.
The calculation was correct, though not in the way the producers had anticipated. Bob Dylan was 45 years old in November of 1986. Bob Dylan had released Empire Burlesque the previous year and had been on the road for most of the intervening period as part of the True Confessions tour with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers.
Bob Dylan was in November of 1986 in one of the most prolific and restless phases of a career that had consisted almost entirely of prolific and restless phases. A career that had moved through folk, rock, country, gospel, and back again, that had been declared finished at least six times by the music press, and at each time continued with the serene indifference of a river to the opinions of people standing on its banks.
Bob Dylan had been redefining what music could be. Since 1962, Bob Dylan had invented and reinvented himself so many times that reinvention had become his defining characteristic, not in the superficial sense of a performer changing costumes, but in the deeper sense of a musician who had never allowed his work to settle into a form that could be anticipated or categorized from the outside.
Bob Dylan understood influence and originality and the relationship between them better than almost anyone alive in 1986. Bob Dylan had spent 24 years thinking carefully and specifically about where music came from and where music was going and what it meant that those two things were always in constant conversation with each other.
Keith Richards was 42 years old in November of 1986. Keith Richards had been playing guitar professionally since 1962. Keith Richards had built a career on a foundation of American blues and rhythm and blues. A foundation that Keith Richards had studied with the systematic devotion of someone who understood that the tradition he was building on was not incidental to the music he was making, but essential to it.
that you could not understand what Keith Richards did without understanding where Keith Richards had come from and what Keith Richards had been listening to since he was a teenager in Dartford with American Import Records and a secondhand guitar and no teacher except the recordings themselves. Keith Richards had never pretended otherwise. Keith Richards had in fact spent considerable energy across his career making the lineage explicit, naming the artists, citing the recordings, insisting on the acknowledgement of influence that the mainstream music
industry had a long history of suppressing or ignoring or crediting to the wrong people. If anything, Keith Richards was more transparent about his sources than most musicians of his generation. Keith Richards had always said openly that the Rolling Stones came directly from the blues, that Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson and the specific tradition of the Mississippi Delta were not background influences, but foundational ones.
The music Keith Richards made was in direct and sustained conversation with that tradition, something Keith Richards considered not a limitation, but a responsibility and a form of respect. The interview had been running for 8 minutes when the host asked Bob Dylan about the current state of rock and roll.
Bob Dylan answered with the density and the indirection that characterized Bob Dylan’s responses to direct questions, turning the question over, approaching it from an unexpected angle, finding his way to what he actually thought through a series of observations that moved like a river rather than a road. Bob Dylan was not a straightforward interview subject.
Bob Dylan had been asked about rock and roll in hundreds of interviews across 24 years and had developed the habit of treating the question as an invitation to think out loud rather than a request for a prepared position. The producer Gerald Sherman said afterward that in the first 8 minutes of the interview, he had been slightly anxious, not because anything was going wrong, but because nothing was going anywhere in particular yet.
The interview had the feeling of two conversations happening simultaneously. Bob Dylan’s internal one and the external one visible to the cameras. And Gerald Sherman was not certain in those first eight minutes that the two conversations would converge into something. Bob Dylan talked about influence. Bob Dylan talked about originality.
Bob Dylan talked about the difference between music that absorbed a tradition and transformed it and music that absorbed a tradition and reproduced it. And then Bob Dylan made his assessment. And then Bob Dylan said with the precision of a man making a musical assessment rather than a personal judgment that the Rolling Stones work, and Bob Dylan was specific, naming Keith Richards as the guitarist whose approach he was discussing was derivative in a way that Bob Dylan found limiting.
Bob Dylan said it without hostility. Bob Dylan said it as a technical observation about the relationship between source material and the work that came from it. Bob Dylan said that Keith Richards played the blues the way the blues had already been played, rather than using the blues as a starting point for something that had not yet been played.
Keith Richards had been listening to this with the specific attention Keith Richards gave to things being said about music by people who knew music. Keith Richards did not interrupt. Keith Richards did not shift in his chair or display any of the visible signals of a person preparing a defensive response. Keith Richards listened to Bob Dylan’s complete observation all the way to its conclusion without interrupting and without displaying any visible signal of preparing a response.
Then Keith Richards said one sentence. The sentence was not a rebuttal. The sentence did not defend Keith Richards music or argue for its originality or challenge Bob Dylan’s characterization of what the blues meant in the context of rock and roll. The sentence was something else entirely, something that required a specific kind of confidence to say.
The confidence of a person who has spent long enough thinking about the same things as the person they are talking to that they can locate the exact point where their thinking diverges and say something useful about that point rather than simply defending their own position. The sentence acknowledged everything Bob Dylan had said, the assessment, the distinction Bob Dylan was drawing, the specific musical concern underlying the observation, and then turned it 90°.
Keith Richards took Bob Dylan’s own framework, the one Bob Dylan had used to analyze Keith Richards relationship to the blues tradition, and applied it back to Bob Dylan’s work with the same precision Bob Dylan had used to apply it to Keith Richards. Spare aimed. The sentence asked Bob Dylan something about Bob Dylan’s own music, about the relationship between Bob Dylan’s sources and Bob Dylan’s output that Bob Dylan had not been asked on television before.
The sentence did not attack. The sentence illuminated. Bob Dylan laughed. The laugh was not the polite laugh of someone responding to a joke. The laugh was the involuntary laugh of someone who has been genuinely surprised. The specific kind of surprise that a person of exceptional intelligence experiences when someone else’s intelligence exceeds their expectations.
Bob Dylan laughed for 4 seconds. Then Bob Dylan stopped laughing. Then Bob Dylan was quiet for 3 seconds in the way that Bob Dylan was quiet when Bob Dylan was thinking rather than performing thought. Then Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” The producer in the booth, a man named Gerald Sherman, who had been working in television for 14 years, said afterward that in 14 years of live television production, he had never heard Bob Dylan say those two words in a public forum.
Gerald Sherman said he had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions and had observed Bob Dylan in numerous other contexts and that you’re right was not a phrase that Bob Dylan deployed easily or often because Bob Dylan had spent 24 years being right about music in ways that other people eventually caught up with. And the experience of being right ahead of everyone else does not generally produce a man who says you’re right readily when someone else makes a point.
The host of the program, a journalist named Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said afterward that the 11 seconds between Bob Dylan’s assessment and Bob Dylan saying, “You’re right,” were the most extraordinary 11 seconds of television she had been present for. Patricia Wells said that what she witnessed in those 11 seconds was not a debate or a confrontation or a celebrity exchange of competing opinions.
Patricia Wells said what she witnessed was one musician recognizing another musician as an equal, which was in the specific context of Bob Dylan in 1986, not something that happened in public very often. The interview continued for another 42 minutes after those 11 seconds. The conversation between Bob Dylan and Keith Richards in the remaining 42 minutes was described by everyone who watched it as fundamentally different from the first 8 minutes.
The host, Patricia Wells, who had been conducting music interviews for 12 years and understood the difference between the performance of conversation and actual conversation, said that at approximately the 9-minute mark, something shifted in the studio. That the formal interview, architecture dissolved, and what replaced it was something less structured and more genuine.
Bob Dylan and Keith Richards talked about influence and originality and the blues and what it meant to build on a tradition without being consumed by it. They talked about specific recordings and specific musicians with the specificity of two people who had spent their entire adult lives thinking about these things and rarely found another person who had thought about them with equivalent care.
They talked about where music came from and where music was going and whether those two questions were actually one question or two. Patricia Wells said afterward that she had asked approximately four questions in the remaining 42 minutes because Bob Dylan and Keith Richards did not require questions. They required only a room and a camera and the shared understanding that what they were saying together was worth recording carefully.
She said it was the best interview she had ever conducted and that she had conducted the smallest part of it. After the program, Bob Dylan and Keith Richards were in the corridor outside the studio when the host Patricia Wells passed them. Patricia Wells said she did not stop because she did not want to interrupt.
She observed them for approximately 30 seconds from a distance. She said they were talking with the ease of people who had known each other for years rather than people who had met for the first time 2 hours earlier. She said that something had shifted between them during the broadcast that the broadcast had made permanent rather than temporary.
She continued down the corridor and did not look back. She said in her account of that evening that she had decided in that moment not to interrupt the conversation because some conversations are more valuable than any question a journalist might ask and that the conversation she had observed for 30 seconds in the corridor outside the studio was one of them.
She had been a music journalist for 12 years. She recognized the difference. Bob Dylan and Keith Richards have maintained their friendship across four decades. They have appeared together at various events, most significantly at the concert for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1995, where people who were present described them as inseparable for most of the evening, occupying the same corner of the backstage area and talking with the concentrated attention of people who only have a limited amount of time together and intend to use it
well. Bob Dylan has spoken about Keith Richards in interviews with the specific thoughtful care that Bob Dylan reserves for musicians whose work Bob Dylan considers genuinely important rather than merely culturally prominent. Keith Richards has spoken about Bob Dylan in similar terms with the specific respect of someone who recognizes in another person a commitment to music that goes deeper than career.
Neither Bob Dylan nor Keith Richards has made a public statement specifically about how the friendship began or about the November 1986 interview. Bob Dylan has not mentioned the 11 seconds. Keith Richards has not mentioned the sentence. The interview exists in the archive. The 11 seconds are there. The laugh is there. The two words are there.
What is also there for anyone who watches the interview from its beginning and pays attention to the shift that happens at the 9-minute mark is the specific moment when two people who thought they were appearing on a television program discovered they were actually talking to each other. What Keith Richards said in that one sentence has never been officially reported.
The people who were in the studio that evening, Gerald Sherman, Patricia Wells, the floor crew, the two camera operators, the makeup artist who was watching from the side of the set, have described the sentence in consistent terms. They have described its effect. They have described Bob Dylan’s laugh and Bob Dylan’s silence and Bob Dylan’s two words.
They have not repeated the sentence itself in the specific understanding that the sentence was said between two musicians on a television program and that its power resided in the specific context of that exchange and would not survive removal from it intact. What can be said is this. Keith Richards said something to Bob Dylan about Bob Dylan’s music that used Bob Dylan’s own observation about Keith Richards as its starting point and arrived somewhere that Bob Dylan had not anticipated.
Keith Richards turned Bob Dylan’s assessment 90° and showed Bob Dylan something about the music they had both spent their lives making that Bob Dylan recognized immediately as true. And Bob Dylan said, “You’re right.” Two words said by Bob Dylan in public on live television in 1986 to Keith Richards in response to a single sentence Keith Richards had said about music.
Two words that Gerald Sherman, who had worked with Bob Dylan on two previous occasions, said he had never heard Bob Dylan say in a public forum. Two words that Patricia Wells, who had been interviewing musicians for 12 years, said were the most significant two words she had heard in those 12 years. Not because of their content, but because of who said them and what it cost to say them and what it meant that Keith Richards had produced them in 11 seconds from a conversation that began with Bob Dylan calling Keith Richards’s music derivative. And Keith Richards and
Bob Dylan have been close friends for nearly 40 years. The sentence did its work in 11 seconds on the evening of November 3rd, 1986. The work has been ongoing ever since. If this story moved you, subscribe and leave a comment below. Have you ever said something to someone that turned a potential disagreement into an unexpected and lasting connection? Tell us about it in the comments below.
Share this with someone who needs to be reminded that the right sentence said at the right moment can completely change the entire direction of a relationship. Ring the notification bell for more untold stories about the extraordinary human beings behind music’s greatest legends.
Disclaimer : This content may be created by AI for entertainment purposes. Any resemblance to real persons, events, or places is coincidental.
