Airbus Defence and Space has entered into a partnership with the UK Ministry of Defence’s Missile Defence Centre (MDC), which serves as the United Kingdom’s Centre of Excellence for missile defence.
The MDC, a joint venture between the government and industry, was established in 2003 with the aim of enhancing opportunities related to ballistic missile defence.
Over time, the MDC’s mandate has expanded to encompass not only traditional ballistic missiles, but also advanced missiles, including hypersonic threats.
Markos Trichas, Head of UK Military Space Future Programmes at Airbus Defence and Space, said:
“Airbus is the UK’s leading space company, involved in multiple projects and studies, developing invaluable knowledge and insight into the missile-defence domain. Airbus has been working closely with DSTL and Space Command on various intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance ‘Protect and Defend’ projects that could significantly enhance the UK’s capabilities in ballistic defence, making Airbus an invaluable space partner in the MoD’s Missile Defence Centre partnership.”
The MDC was established in 2003 as a government-industry partnership to deliver science and technology research across all areas of Ballistic Missile Defence.
Is this finally some movement on ballistic missile defences including with “actual missiles” being proposed for the UK mainland as well as continental Europe? Couldn’t couldn’t come soon enough really with Russia’s Medvedev recently threatening “nuclear retaliation” if it loses in the Ukraine. Not just Russian subs and now Poseidon nuclear tipped torpedos (how do you defend against these?) to worry about but what Russia has in Kaliningrad (and how does Europe defend against this?). It’s a scary neighbourhood at the moment. Let’s hope our alliance’s nuclear detterence holds up.
This announcement is an attempt by the MoD’s Missile Defence Centre to justify it’s existence and it’s £billions budget. Formed in 2003 it has produced NO BMD system/missiles and it has not published a plan to do so.
Airbus SE is not a British company, it is a European company with headquarters in Leiden, Netherlands (HQ) Blagnac, France (Main Office), Madrid, Spain (International Office) and Hamburg, Germany (Operations Office)
You are correct they have done nothing for the UK defence. Nor can I see any plans for a UK missile defence network, or indeed a UK air defence SAM system….
Like all the other ones around the world that are not that effective?
No point in pouring billions down the drain on a very imperfect solution.
“Like all the other ones around the world that are not that effective?”
Everyone seems to be conflation civilization ending ICBM salvo defence with the much broader subject of ballistic missile defence. There are a number of highly effective BMD systems out there that deal with much more prevalent SRBM and MRBM threat. Patriot, SM3, SM6, THAAD, and other Russian and Israeli systems.
Theatre level from short range ballistic you have a point.
I think the wider point being addressed was – UK mainland defence. Which would imply long range ballistic given the very large NATO buffer….
The NATO buffer is true if it’s a surface to surface weapon, but there are lots of ship and air launched ballistic missiles out there which means they can go around that buffer.
We are surrounded by sea. I’d have thought a navalised BMD based upon 4-6 future type 83s allocated the role would be a sensible idea. Hence why the RN needs at least 10 ideally 12 type 83s.
The USN has been kicking and screaming to anyone that will listen their eagerness to get out of the business of defending land targets. They absolutely hate it and are desperate to get out of that business. It basically places an undue burden on the limited number of ships they have that could be put to better use somewhere else. These BMD capable surface ships just go around and around in a designated likely missile approach area. You can see why they don’t want to do it, and that’s with a fleet the size of the USN.
How much budget do they have or what has been the spend since 2003? There is to be a 700 million dollar plan for a BMD radar from LM Aster 30b1NT is a hoped drop in for T45 with necessary Samson upgrades. AUKUS and the Japan agreement ( which includes seeker tech) might throw up options. Right now, or in the last decade the only off the shelf options would be Arrow, Aegis ashore , or THAAD. That would just benefit the US taxpayer to multiple billions and any of those would have to be constnaky upgraded at more expense.… Read more »
And as we have seen Japan has rejected Aegis ashore due to cost and perceived lack of effectiveness moving instead to a ship based more flexible version. We are going in a similar direction if it is properly followed through. Isn’t this body there to investigate the threat and potential defence? As such instant immediate (perhaps ineffective too) physical answers may not be seen from its existence but potentially what it has learned, if doing its job properly will prove vital in any active programme that eventually comes about. I’m not defending it as such just trying to add a… Read more »
Who says it has done nothing? BW isn’t a guy that signs of money-down-the-drain projects and neither is Radakin. I might take a lot of time and work to produce a proper system that combines the assets, like radar heads and other data feeds we already have. I would *guess* that the monitoring and tracking side is largely done. I would further *guess* that the next step is to plumb in the ASTER fire control system and mid range course guidance in anticipation of the NT variant becoming reality after it is tested in the upgraded T45. It would make… Read more »
I think the Russian nuke torpedo is just a scare weapon. If you let off a nuke it is a nuke regardless if it is delivered by sea. We would just retaliate with nukes. So the Russians are just pumping money into silly systems. Long may it continue.
Exactly, and how could you control the direction of a nuclear tsunami? Surely would engulf all coasts in the region including there own.
It’s just a deluded plan too lower the nuclear response by saying it’s an accident or freek of nature, any attack will be met by equal or overwhelming force.
Gov is doing the right thing by reinvesting in new nuclear, Russia will collapse again shortly.
Exactly the US examined the utility of such a weapon back in the 60s and rejected it so it is no wonder weapon just another way of a technologically challenged Country to scare the World into complying with its political aims. By definition they trying to give the impression that present standard ways of delivering nuclear weapons can be defended against when in essence clearly they cannot. So such weapons don’t change the balance of mutual destruction. Same as hypersonic missiles KH 22s have offered the same threat of nuclear cruise missile strikes on the US coast as they’re hypersonic… Read more »
You don’t defend against a nuclear exchange, that is the point. One or two weapons from a rogue state maybe, but not when super powers are involved.
Medvedev is a cock, always spouting off all sorts of nonsense and just trying to push the envelope. I doubt Russia would have any partners left in the world including China if things started moving in a nuclear direction. I doubt there would be any spots on the planet that didn’t end up being contaminated. And the likes of China would also just be a nuclear wasteland.
The Poseidon drone has been laughed at due its speed and would take weeks to get anywhere
IT’S about time we get some sort of Missile defence the way things are ,hard to believe the UK hasn’t got a system in place. 🙄
Yes especially as many countries in other European countries have got air defence systems (France, Italy etc). We have nothing… you cannot count Sky Sabre as this is an Army System and not provided for UK national defence but army air defence.
Sky Sabre is more than that; it forms the core of a missile defence system on the Falklands. Furthermore, it replaces Rapier which was repurposed to protect London during the 2012 Olympics. Admittedly it has a long way to go and Rapier would have been no use at all, but the thought was there, and I’m sure Sky Sabre could be equally repurposed. I think Sky Sabre will get increasingly more powerful with longer range missiles included. Currently it takes CAMM and CAMM-ER, so out to about 45km (further than the Aster 15s. However if we continue with the Anglo-Polish… Read more »
The issue with sky saber is the lack of units. When they wanted to defend London during the Olympics they had to have dozens of launch sites because of the size of the city. Ok sky saber is much longer range but how many cities could they defend realsitically considering you need volume also to avoid a saturation attack.
Even if the idea is purely wars overseas, I wonder how many units would have been required to defend all the bases that were being used in Iraq/afgan and not just the central base.
You need a missile like ASTER 30 for national defence backed with Sky Sabre for moe local defence of Key Infrastructure.
There are currently not enough Sly Sabre batteries. The are army assets not national defence assets.
True.
I do however wonder if we have enough sky sabre to protect any overseas deployment we might need to send our miltiary on.
Lack of sufficient quantity is a common problem, alas.
The USA has spent $350b to date on ballistic missile defense. Latest assessment says it is 55% effective in highly scripted tests. The American Physical Society reports that the system is ineffective.
There is no chance UK will commit the kinds of funds needed, so I don’t understand the point of the MDC.
You are conflating the GMD system which is designed to defeat ICBMs with other BMD systems that are highly effective at dealing with the much more common short and medium range ballistic missiles. THAAD, Patriot, SM3, SM6…etc
Well Peter s I saw a program on US production of a catabatic ( wrong spelling acknowledged ) bomb explosion. The program featured a big science lab scientists and technicians. It discussed the millions of dollars spent on it. Later on it switched to Salisbury plain and a man In a white coat and beared. He went to a wooden shed came out with what look liked a gallon size Paint pot. He then attached a detonator to it and he walked away. He then detonated it and the camera in slow motion demonstrated a catabatic explosion. See what I… Read more »
Agreed. The “easy win” would have been to procure additional T45 systems and Aster 30/15’s and base them around the UK.
Land based systems become obvious and easy targets to hit by conventional weapons and sabotage long-before things turn nuclear. Far more difficult to take out ship based systems, eg T45s
Sure, if they are at fixed locations. Not so easy to target if they are dispersed mobile units, frequently changing location, as all artillery assets now need to do at first sign of danger.
So no, land-based missile defence is workable if the right tactics are employed.
Please feel free to name these mobile units that have the same ABM capability as an Arleigh Burke destroyer or T45 after the NT upgrade. I’m pretty sure they don’t exist otherwise the USA wouldn’t be planning on building fixed Aegis Ashore systems.
At the moment any type 45 has no ballistic missile capability
That would be a vaporware.
What part of the phrase “T45 AFTER the NT upgrade” are you incapable of comprehending?
Idiot.
Oh dear not keeping up with the story, do make more of an effort at reading and comprehension.
But it also means they have to be deliberately targeted to clear the way. Thereby using up stocks of weapons that could have been used for something else.
But agree a mobile system has the advantage of being in less predictable locations.
That’s a very expensive way though of getting your opponent to use up stocks of weapons. If that’s the plan, best follow the Ukrainian trick of building “wooden HIMARS” decoys.
It makes you think why they would put a fixed Aegis system in Romania if it’s an easy target.
Presumably because the only alternative would be a ship based off the Romanian coast, ie in the Black Sea. As the USA is not a coastal state to the Black Sea it’s limited by the Montreaux Convention as to how long it can maintain a ship there.
Additionally, being so close to Russian airspace, in a small body of water compared to the Atlantic or Pacific, the mobility of a ship based solution is probably inconsequential.
Or base Ageus ships in Romania. Granted, it would require a logistics plan to supply the ships abroad. But this hasn’t stopped the US Navy so far.
No the Montreaux Convention would prevent this. Warships of countries who do not border the Black Sea must leave after 21 days. There are also restrictions on tonnage, number, etc, etc.
The only way to do it would be for the USN to donate Aleigh Burke’s to the Romanian Navy for them to operate.
Agree being an island we have a natural advantage and can use sea based systems for an interested air defence system. Which are by nature harder to find and suppress as well as being able to vector towards threat axis.
Maybe some additional (2-4) T31 type A140 AAW versions might be a goer? That can also be part of the LRGs as well. Leave the T45s more for the CSGs.
Well the primary purpose of the T45s is for CSG, 2 for each carrier plus 2 unavailable due to maintenance/training. So for the U.K. BMD we should be looking at new ships. But even with the planned Aster Block 1 upgrade for ship BMD defence it’s limited to certain ballistic missiles (<600km for Block 1, and 1,500km for Block1NT). It won’t be until Block 2 that Aster can deal with missiles with a 3,000km range. So while an AAW T31 might be an option, I suspect the actual missiles needed won’t be available until when we look to replace T45… Read more »
Hi Sean, I was thinking more of a 2nd tier AAW, not necessarily Aster/Sampson based. Something maybe like CAMM-ER/EX development from the Anglo-Polish T31 program? No idea on pricing though. Might be half the price of an additional T26 for ASW but they also carry a decent 48 CAMM.They should also be able to squeeze more than 24 CAMM, maybe 32,48, onto the T45s even without MK41.
Hi Quentin, while I have no objection to any expansion of the RN I’m not sure what these would be for. I can only see them as a defence against cruise-missile or aircraft if they got close enough (Russian aircraft are stating in Russian airspace to fire off their missiles). I’d expect the RAF to be dealing with enemy aircraft so that leaves cruise missiles. I’m no expert but I suspect a mobile land-based system, such as Sky Sabre, based closer to the target would be better defence against cruise missiles. 🤔 (With ship based solutions for ballistic missile defence;… Read more »
True but then you need at-least three or four ships to maintain a permanent station. Becomes expensive and ships can be easily targets by submarines with an opening sneak attack.
I’d say 3 minimum on rotation definitely, probably 4. You’d be looking at similar to CASD.
However in theory a T45 with Aster 30 Block2 sat in port in the U.K. could still handle a ballistic missile launched from anywhere west of Yekaterinburg.
As for enemy submarines, hopefully we’re tracking them regardless of where they’re sneaking. But it strengthens the case that the T83, successor to the T45, should have stronger ASuW.
Aster 15s are no better than CAMM. And what are Aster 30s supposed to defend us against? The Scots, perhaps (or if you are Scots, the maybe those naughty English). Still far too short range for any real ballistic missile threat to the UK.
100% correct, do the job and being on the move all the time near impossible to take out unlike land based units. It’s common sense but thats not a function you find in most of the MOD. The RN gives us our defence each and every day with out deterrent subs with their war load on. You can only stop a bully by facing up to them and Putin for one knows he would not survive any real attempt against us.
This should be a NATO priority, make it one of the standing articles that we must have a collective missile defence. Help spread the cost and also be a counter to China not just Russia
Airbus?! So in 30 years you’ll have something…
To protect UK assuming no war with France or Germany the only thing that make sense is an Arrow 3 or a Standard 6.
There aren’t any systems that could protect the uk from 100s of intercontinental ballistic warheads incoming. Even if the uk put all its defence budget into this for the last 20 years it still couldn’t provide a defence bubble. The best there is currently are only capable of stopping a few warheads and even that is questionable. Put 8 warheads on a missile and 22 decoys and there is 30 targets. 10 missiles there’s 300 targets and so on. Guess where the first warheads are coming to. The large sensors, command and control and launchers for the defence system. A… Read more »
Indeed the maths around defending against ICBMs means it’s always easier to overcome the defence…your example of one multi stage booster in an offensive role generating 30 targets, vs one multi stage booster in defence beings able to loft only one exoatmospheric kill vehicle means your investment in defence needs to be an order of magnitude over the oppositions investment in offence…it’s why we all just went for strategic offence as a defence….apart from the US which has a couple of enemies it can invest 30 time in defensive boosters than they can in offensive boosters ( North Korea )… Read more »
100% agree.
Hard to believe? Not really! Just surprised they’re talking about it now as the teeth continue to be extracted….
But what has it produced in 20 years??
What has anyone produced in 20 years other than mildly effective solutions at best. Patriot is pretty useful at providing decent defence against non nuclear ballistic strikes because even 50% reduction in conventional strikes is a big win in a conventional conflict as shown in Ukraine. A 50 to 60% even higher, kill ratio against nuclear missiles in an island like the UK is as good as pointless for enormous cost. There might be a slightly different argument if the USA or European Russia is the target but even that is greatly debatable I suspect but similar may apply perhaps… Read more »
I get most of it is probably research and highly classified at that but like the rest of the military they have dithered over the past few decades, guaranteed there isn’t a product even close to come to fruition. Surely in partnership with NATO we can develop a layered approach with long and short range across the alliance backed up by new radar. On our end we should be developing T45, typhoon and sky saber to form a common ABM system able to deploy around the UK/Europe alongside other nations. This could form a adequate shield until a better more… Read more »
Rather than to be worried about a nuclear icbm, the far more likely threat is the proliferation of short range ballistic missiles. Even Hezbollah has ballistic missiles. Thankfully there are a number of capable systems that appear to be very good against these threats. The other issue is with a ship based system, it severely limits the usefulness of the ship by just being limited to patrolling a box in the ocean most likely to be the approach direction of the threat.
Get off Zero. Even one battery of Arrow/Aegis Ashore/THAAD/SAMP-T/Patriot, is better than nothing. Also that one battery gives you operational experience, so if you need more/better system, you know what you are talking about.
Does anyone know why Meteor has never been seriously proposed as part of a land based defensive system when similar shorter range and arguably inferior missiles have been adapted to such systems very successfully for example NASAMS. Would be interesting to determine how it would compare as a base system against CAMM and Aster. Was it because of our commitment to Aster that no plan to exploit it was made or are there other issues involved that made CAMM more appropriate or indeed is there any overlap at all?
Unit cost of a Meteor vs CAMM are an order of magnitude different. I imagine that had something to do with it.
I was reading an article on modern AMRAAM-120 costs, which have varied between $2m and $4m a missile over the last few years (we paid about $3m each for our 120Ds). As I understand it, NASAMS uses AMRAAM and Sidewinder missiles and probably other air-to-air missiles too, so NASAMS is only “cheap” if you have earlier batch spare missiles that would otherwise be unused. A bit like us firing off Harpoons over the next couple of years. NASAMS-3 can fire AIM-9X Sidewinders, costing about $390K each, so cheaper than AMRAAMs but still not as cheap as a new CAMM is… Read more »
What do you want to shoot down? Meteor is air breathing. Patriot PAC3 MSE is quoted as being able to intercept up to 130,000 ft.
Cost probably. Ramjet Metoer is designed to maintain energy to deal with hard turning aircraft threats at long range from the launch aircraft. It will already be moving at high speed on launch so from a ground launcher the range advantage maybe not as great. Sky sabre is cold launch which simplifies things, Nasaams are placed on fixed trailers , I assume the earth glows hot when they are fired. Easier to counter maybe, as would Meteor. I read the skysabre lorry can hide in a building with a hole in the roof and cold launch the missile to be… Read more »
Doesn’t Meteor have to be fired “downhill” for best effect?
Plenty hills around. Launch it from the top🙈
No. It is an all aspect missile, so the parent aircraft can be at any attitude when firing. If you are meaning that the missile has to be moving forward before firing off the launch rail. Again not so. To make sure the ramjet can operate, it has to be moving faster than Mach 1, ideally Mach 1.2. As the airflow is more predictable from then on. Meteor can be fired from standstill. Inside the ramjet’s exhaust is a solid rocket that is used to accelerate the missile past Mach 1. Once it has burnt out the ramjet fires and… Read more »
Some of it has to do with the politics I believe. Take Aster for example. It is a MBDA product but primarily led by the French with Italian support. The next important update to Aster replaces the French made Ku band radar with a French made Ka band radar. This means it will have a much higher resolution of a target. Which is important when intercepting a ballistic missile. Especially when you want to hit it kinetically and not rely on a proximity detonation to take it out. Aster is also a two stage solid rocket system. Using a booster… Read more »
Doesn’t ramjet depend on air? Hence it is limited by ceiling . A pure rocket is needed for high altitude or exo atmospheric intercept of ballistic missiles. ABM and anti aircraft functions are therefore difficult to combine in anything but lower altitude ABM.
Fatter bodied rocket booster stages provide the power to reach altitude at high speed
Yes, a ramjet is limited by how much air is available, hence why they only work up to 150,000ft. Similarly it’s the same with a scramjet. After that you have to carry your oxidizer, hence rockets rule. At rest on the launchpad, a missile is at its heaviest. If we are talking about a missile that needs to reach low earth orbit, around 80% or more of the weight is fuel and oxidizer. The missile will also need to be made in stages. As once the fuel/oxidizer reduces, the engine will be trying to overcome dead weight of the missile’s… Read more »
We operate ship-based systems on our destroyers that are equivalent to SAMP/T down to the same missiles. In what way would getting a battery of SAMP/T teach us anything that operating Sky Sabre and PAAMS already haven’t?
Next generation, Arrow 3 and 4 are a completely different kettle of fish and I hope our work with the US will bring similar benefits. If we really wanted some ABM defence right now rather than waiting for that partnership to develop, buying Arrow 2 and 3 could be a viable route. I say “some defence” because a total defence isn’t possible yet.
We only have 6 T45. They may be on the other side of the world, when we need high end SAM defence in the UK.
I believe Aegis ashore are positioned forward in Poland and Romania because they are aiming to hit missiles fired from the middle east “rogue states” to intercept in the boost phase/ midcourse phase.. So basing Aegis ashore in the UK would not provide the envelope to hit something fired at the UK. THAAD based in Korea or sold to the gulf states are therefore tailored to that operational threat.,.at 2billion a battery. Aster 30b2 NT will supposedly be able to deal with 2000km range BMs so that would be our obvious transition SM3 future blocks will fly higher for longer… Read more »
The SM3 is a purely exoatmospheric defence missile, it’s designed to take out targets in low earth orbit at 250,000ft plus. SM6 and THAAD were designed to take out endoatmospheric targets at a published height of 125,000ft. China, being clever, realized that a missile flying a quasi-ballistic (flattened) path above 150,000ft but below 250,000ft would be immune to SM3, THAAD and SM6. Hence the hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) development. Both Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are now developing longer range versions of their SM6 and THAAD to close the gap. Neither SM6 or THAAD has shot down a HGV. However both… Read more »
Spadeadam is another suitable site. Being able to shoot down Iskander/SS-21/Scud class missiles would be a good first step.
So after 20 years we have nothing at all to show for it. Nothing. Not even close to something. Fantastic value!
As usual this is more about ploughing tax player money into some government ministers private interests than it is delivering anything of value to the country.
What a wonderful corrupt cesspit we live in.
And you have proof of this corruption I assume or are you just viewing things through the bias of your political viewpoint? Or worse, disingenuously trying to make political capital out of a defence issue?
After 20 years it would seem that it has concluded that we shouldn’t blow hundreds of billions on existing systems that are very far from being fully effective.
Though presumably they have advised on the wisdom of investing money on the Aster NT upgrades to give the T45 a BMD capability.
Also having sovereign expertise?
Hopefully, the sovereign expertise to know what is worth buying and what isn’t.
Time for a serious discussion then and finally something to show for it.
GROUND BASED AIR DEFENCE
“Long range ballistic missiles, stealth aircraft, Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles and cruise missiles make up just part of the new and proliferating threat from the sky. Defence against this complex threat calls for networked surveillance and control systems as well as a layered architecture of short, medium and long range anti-air missiles. MBDA’s expertise in creating effective defensive “umbrellas” has positioned the Company as an industry leader.”
Ballistic missile defence 28 Nov. 2022 “Germany hosts the NATO BMD command centre at Ramstein Air Base. The United States contributes to NATO BMD through its European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). Türkiye is hosting a US BMD radar at Kürecik. Romania is hosting a US Aegis Ashore site at Deveselu Air Base. Poland is hosting another Aegis Ashore site, whose construction is nearing completion at the Redzikowo military base. Additionally, in the context of the EPAA, Spain is hosting four multi-mission BMD-capable Aegis ships at its naval base in Rota, for use of the NATO BMD mission when required.” More… Read more »
Personally until we can sort out our own missile defence system I would suggest buying a mixture of patriot and thadd from the Americans as we get most of our stuff from them anyway or even a few arleigh burke destroyers with SM-3 and SM6 missiles
I would be more impressed if we’re talking to Japan. Similar situation to ourselves a densely populated island with very little warning time. We have roughly a third of the warning time the US has and they only get 55% kills. So launch 10 missiles at us results in 4/5 hits, that’s it for the U.K. I seem to remember that post Cold War it emerged that the former USSR had just 1 prime target in Europe and if they hit that it eliminated most of Western Europe and pretty well stopped any chance of US resupply convoys due to… Read more »
The most effective defence is to shoot back, not at.
I think I need to do a piece on how ballistic missile interception works, as there is a massive misconception on how missile defence systems work.
That would be nice. Thank you.
Bravo. And don’t forget our fav site on Portsdown Hill. 🤪
Next task would be for people to read it and understand.
Default setting of missile defence stops all seems so much more appealing to lots of people.
Chat to George?
yes please 🙂
Would likely be beneficial- I can’t claim to be an expert. But my understanding is that nuclear ABM for the mainland UK is a challenge to the point of impossibility due to our size and relative position compared to launch sites for attacking missiles. I’d be interested in a primer from yourself though. Personally, I don’t think this anouncement is about that at all. I think it’s more to do with working out how to develop/provide ABM to our fleet and to our forward deployed land forces, hence the department’s expansion to include hypersonic missiles and other threats. Expecting this… Read more »
No not really, so long as you appreciate the majority of the interceptions will be carried out in the missile’s terminal phase, such as when it’s deployed it re-entry vehicles. However, if you use SM3, then you can engage missiles in the transition phase much further away. It’s impossible for a UK based radar to detect a missile launched from the Mediterranean area for example. Probably not until it’s reached it’s orbital apogee. The downside, is that taking out missiles in the transition phase, means you will be creating a lot of orbital debris. Which can/will take out low earth… Read more »
Isn’t that something that France has proposed recently too, a pan-European ABM agreement of some kind?
This is great news
🏴🇬🇧
My first post here appears to have been deleted already! What’s with that? There was nothing too risky in what I wrote. Not impressed!
Oh come on. Just because you don’t know about an AMDS, doesn’t mean that we haven’t gotten one. We don’t know about it because it’s a SECRET! Does anyone sincerely believe that the F22 is the most developed fighting stealth aircraft?. We just don’t know about it. Staying ahead of the game is about letting you opposite to believe they are developing well, whilst secretly knowing…you are years ahead.
As we (rightly) involve the UK in overseas conflicts, there is an ever increasing risk that something will be coming back our way so the argument for not having any missile defence for the UK mainland and its infrastructure is no. longer tenable.
So the question is what types of system are needed? Apart from long-range anti-ballistic missile threats, I’ll just also flag up the old problem of long-range cruise missiles (sub/ship-lauched) coming in from the Atlantic that the UK also needs to consider.
Apart from the UK, there is the other issue of protecting say Divisional HQ. As Ukraine has shown as soon as someone starts blaring away on comms they can expect a HIMARS, Kalibr or Iskander response. Looking at these three threats. Each presents a different challenge that requires stopping. It has been widely reported that Russian air defenses cannot stop a HIMARS guided rocket. Which seems rather surprising. Except they are quite thin, so presents a relatively small radar cross section. The Pantsir should be able to stop it, as it is a SHORAD system designed for this type of… Read more »
Thanks for the input DaveyB.
I suppose it is also about actual numbers. i.e. numbers of incoming – including drone saturation attack – and number of anti-air units the UK has and where it places them in a layered defence approach. Almost needs permanent on-station in the air and at sea. I would argue using converted airliners/Hercs as airborne arsenals of missiles patrolling off-shore out to sea, and for long-range land based systems too. Always regret the UK not getting long-range Bloodhound.
Cheers Albert. The beauty with Sky Sabre is that it was designed with swarming attacks in mind. The Rafeal CMS is a derivative of the one used with Iron Dome/Shield. Which has shown it can handle multiple swarming attacks. Similarly, CAMM being soft launched has a very high rate of fire, more so than a hot launched system. The one slight weakness with Sky Sabre is the Saab Girafe radar. Being up high has its advantages, but it is a mechanically scanned radar. I should not list the issues I have with it as it’s a new in-service but if… Read more »
Thanks DaveyB. Great input, but yes be a careful not to say too much.
IMO it was a shame that the UK walked away from its missile industry, ceding to to Matra>Airbus etc. The land-based Sea Dart sounds interesting from a historic perspective. I’ll try and check out. Maybe the UK should also go for other 1980s technology for air-defence like large airships kitted out AWACS-style and stationed over the horizon at altitude?
Where do you stand on the usefulness of upcoming Radar technologies like Quantum Radar, and should the UK participate or just purchase systems?
No worries mate. Quantum radar has been shown to work in the lab. But and it’s a massive but, it’s nigh on impossible to use in the field. The reason behind this is how the two quantum entangled twins are used to determine if one has been “interfered with”. The major issue is quantum storage. At the moment these quantum radars use a length of fiber optic as the storage device. The non-transmitted photon has to travel the same distance as the transmitted one. Otherwise you cannot compare the two when they need measuring. A number of ideas have been… Read more »
WOW! Superb input again DaveyB. Fascinating.
Guess we won’t be using quantum Radar then anytime soon to see what Putin is having for breakfast.
Shame your posts are at the backend of an old thread now. All this stuff is very relevant given that the Rooskie media is threatening to nuke Faslane, and Borris has just said Putin threatened to lob a missile at him.
Hope the MDC/MoD/Gov now look seriously at missile defence for the UK.
Personally, I’m more concerned about protecting the UK (particularly its key military bases) from conventional missile attack than nukes. If nukes are used then it’s Trident (MAD) time anyway.