Tobias Ellwood, MP for Bournemouth East, inquired about the types of air defence systems in use across the Royal Navy, Army, and Royal Air Force.

The response from James Cartlidge MP, Minister of State for Defence, listed various systems ranging from guided weapon systems and cannons used by the Navy to aircraft armaments in the RAF.

The question posed by Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood sought specifics on the air defence capabilities of the UK military’s three branches. Minister James Cartlidge provided a detailed enumeration of the systems, including Sea Viper and Sea Ceptor missile systems for the Royal Navy, Sky Sabre and High Velocity Missiles for the Army, and Meteor and AMRAAM missiles for the RAF’s fighter aircraft.

The answer came to light via the following response to a Parliamentary Written Question.

Tobias Ellwood MP (Conservative – Bournemouth East) asked:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what air defence systems are in use in the (a) Royal Navy, (b) Army and (c) RAF as of 17 April 2024.”

James Cartlidge MP (Minister of State, Ministry of Defence) responded:

“As of 17 April 2024, the following air defence systems are in use:

Royal Navy:

  • Sea Viper (Guided Weapon System 45)
  • Sea Ceptor (Guided Weapon System 35)
  • Phalanx B (Close In Weapon System)
  • 30mm DS30B Cannon
  • 30mm Automatic Small Calibre Gun MK1.5

Army:

  • Sky Sabre
  • High Velocity Missile
  • Land Environment Air Picture Provision

Royal Air Force:

  • Lightning and Typhoon aircraft are equipped with Meteor, Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missiles (ASRAAM) and Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM).
  • Both aircraft also have air-to-air cannon.”
George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

165 COMMENTS

    • Not yet, and no. It does have AMRAAM/ASRAAM. Typhoon has Meteor though AMRAAM is in still in service on Typhoon and ASRAAM. Its also fitted with the 27mm mauser canon. Certainly as a BVR platform, F35 has many advantages over Typhoon. All aspect stealth being the big one.

    • A curious thing, the UK hasn’t purchased the gun pod for our F35B’s and Meteor won’t be integrated until 2030 ish.

      Another MP who hasn’t got a clue…..

      • Meteor could be a case of clumsy wording, but the gun statement is clear “both aircraft.”
        I too was under the impression that we had yet to purchase gun pods for the F35.
        Maybe the minister should be asked for clarification?

        Interesting that the list appears to confirm that we have no proximity-fused ammo for the 4.5″ guns.

        • You might think that proximity fuzed ordnance ‘might” come in handy for the drone problem….

          Just how obsolete are the Mk8 turrets, considering they will likely still be in use on the T45 until 2045 ish ..

          It appears to me they will either have to retrofit a useful 57″ gun, or end up using the Mk8 as a washing line..

          • If they going to keep T45s for another 10-15 years why not upgrade to the 5″ and the sonar and add 1-2 MK41s or ExLS to up the CAMM to more 24?

          • They’re not gonna rip out the VLS again, a gun upgrade is the only think that could happen, but they’ll probably just stop using them.

          • Not to rip anything out but to put MK41 vls in! Or, even a couple of extra 6 CAMM silos for 6*6 for 36 or make the 6 silos into 8s, for 4*8 for 32, plus 48 Aster, will give a very nice 80 shots. Just don’t waste the space or opportunity. The gym underneath can be moved towards the back of the ship. Safer there too… Lol 😁

          • I mean I really don’t think the gym is a priority, but they would have to remove the Sea ceptor installation to fit mk41, more would be nice, but these shipsnhave already spent a ton of time in refit, I imagine they’d like to avoid adding more.

          • Nothing particularly wrong with the Mk8 since it was changed from hydraulic to servo.

            Accuracy in these systems is all about reproducibility. Mk8 is very reproducible.

            I would ‘guess’ the issue is around getting the AAW software module to deal with ships motion around fast moving aerial targets.

            For shore bombardment the target is static and the ship moves.

            For surface to surface both move but speed differentials are not that great.

            It depends how good you want it to be but that just depends where it is used in the threat table. The risk is you spend a lot of time and money to make something that isn’t much better than a known 40mm. In which case changing 30 -> 40mm is the sane money.

            Although I think it would be pretty easy to make the Mk8 very good at taking out 150mph drones at significant range – so for that kind of thing it could have a role. So maybe it useful as it keeps part of the threat radius further out so there is less risk of saturating other systems.

          • I suppose it depends on whether the Mk8 can be upgraded to destroy the new threats and supported in service when it’s deployed on 6 hulls, with no more than 4 being active?

            Are it’s ammunition stocks sufficient, does it have a shelf life? Can new ammunition be manufactured?

            Above all, can the above be done at a reasonable cost, experience shows us that the cost would likely spin rapidly out of control.

            I personally think that a counter obsolescence future refit, should consider adding T31’s 57mm and twin 40mm mounts.

            It would add another very effective layer to its job of being the fleets primary goalkeeper.

            On that subject, I would add longer ranged 40mm mounts to the QE class, as opposed to the stalled phalanx fit.

          • MK8 Mod 0 was designed from the start for AA. It can do it in the Mod 1 version with ease. I have done shoots with the Mk8 Mod 0 on the end of the 912 Tracker on T21 frigates and 909 on T42s and achieved TTBs against sleeve targets.

            However, the software predictor package that gives it target lead etc doesn’t have AA capability anymore.
            Nothing wrong with the Gun.
            Nothing wrong with the EO tracker.
            It’s the software bit for the predictor that calculates lead angles that is missing …oh and the new ballistic profile for the ER rounds if used in AA.

        • I have some dud info on here a few months back.

          All the 4.5”’ shells are triple fuzed. The two irrelevant fuzes are cut by a simple knife blade on the hoist.

          So the ammunition’s exists and is in service.

          I was having a 1980’s brainless moment when specific ammunition was used in the earlier twin 4.5” turrets but that involved fuzes being screwed in manually.

          • Fuze wiping gear.

            You have 2 blades that contact the fuse as it moves from the loading arm at hoist position up to at gun ramming position. Depending on which individual knife ( left or right or both) has a voltage on it you blow a link in the fuze so you can select Proximity High Sensitive, Low Sensitive or Direct Action. No voltage and the fuze is not set and doesnt function on impact. The system is inherently safe, and you don’t fuze a round until immediately prior to ramming it. Loading arm at hoist to ramming and then breech close for firing should take no more than 2 seconds…Its scarily quick when the loading arm moves, the round is rammed, the loading arm returns to hoist and the ejection tray moves into position to collect the shot case.

        • Mk 8 Gun ammo is proximity fused. It has High & Low sensitivity proximity fuse and Direct action. It’s all the same fuse. If it got close to an AA target it would TTB(Target Trigger Bust) the same as it Air bursts against ground or ship targets.
          However the weapon control system for the gun does not have the requisite AA software in it.
          You can track aircraft with the EO sight on a T23. It does it very well by the way in TV and THIM mode.
          The gun will also follow the director locked onto the target…However there is no way to calculate the corrections and ballistics from the tracker to the gun (Target lead etc) that allow it to be used for AA. Another factor is the Extended Range Rounds now in use have different ballistics compared to the old non-ER rounds. The new rounds have base bleed that give different ballistic performance. Again this isn’t included in the software.

          • Sounds like perfect project for a university or college.
            Write a program to work on this system for taking out air threats.
            Real word experience at little to no cost.
            Then following students can improve on it.
            Someone get me in the MOD

      • The Minister (to be fair) will have signed a statement written for him probably by a civil servant. They are not actually expected to gather the information personally. Besides they may have ordered them recently bearing in mind they might just come in handy.

        • I suppose so Mark, that said, if it was my brief, I would make sure I understood the facts of the matter!

          It looks for all the world like whoever wrote this simply did a quick Google without fact checking it.

          • Yes. Which defeats the point of the exercise – if it is already in the public domain. Perhaps someone will spot this and a clarification will turn up at some point. Misleading parliament is frowned upon.

    • Maybe having a cannon might be good back up to the missiles for shooting down drones?
      Not sure if I’m imagining this but I thought I read that the RAF Hawk’s were also wired to take ASRAAMs for counter air ops, and could potentially have a cannon added, which sounds like a useful second tier option?

      • Hawk T1’s used to be sidewinder capable, and could carry a central mounted aden cannon for point defence. But that was a very long time ago. Hawk MK2 are not ASRAAM capable. They are a dedicated fast jet training platform that can simulate many advanced capabilitys. But it does not have a frontline real combat capability.

          • An F3 Tonka passed target info to a Hawk on voice primary…the Hawk acting as a weapon carrier to allow it to shoot down a threat axis.

          • For WVR combat you can get away without radar. However, clearly radar helps to detect and pick out targets beyond visual range. Which for a IR seeker may be just a pixel wide. Though a missile like ASRAAM blurs the line between WVR and BVR due to its longer range. With radar, a missile like ASRAAM can be launched to intercept the target at maximum effective range.

            Due to its all aspect engagement envelope. Using a helmet mounted sight, ASRAAM can be used for both lock on before launch (LOBL) and lock on after lm launch (LOAL).

            Also missiles such as ASRAAM, have an autosearch function. Where the seeker sweeps the sky looking for targets. It will report what it finds and identify what it thinks is the most threatening as the highest priority. The pilot can accept or ignore the recommendation. Which can force the missile to prioritize the next highest threat.

            In essence Hawk T2s could be fitted with ASRAAM. Though it would require the pilot/s to have a helmet mounted sight as a minimum. Otherwise, they are restricted to the missile’s forward hemispherical view to find and track targets.

          • I wasn’t arguing that Hawks should have combat fit.

            I was arguing that some less exotic missiles would be useful as there is no point in firing top end £2m missiles at a £200k drone that goes the speed of a fast car!

      • I do think that the cannon pods should be looking at again.

        During the cold war, 80 Hawk T1’s received the wiring and pylons for a pair of Aim9L’s.

        Had the balloon gone up, they would have been dispersed with the cannon pack and twin sidewinders to act as an inner defensive ring.

        Their job would have been to go after low level raiders and cruise missiles, vectored onto targets by F4’s / Tornado F3’s and AWAC.

        A slightly heath Robinson setup, but the T1 had adequate transonic capability to be a genuinely useful force multiplier.

        Let’s not forget, they would have been crewed by highly capable instructors too.

        • What I wonder is are these gun pods sitting in a warehouse somewhere. The MOD does have some large storage areas with at the last count over £10 billion worth of stuff.

  2. Well here in Britain we do have a reputation for understatement.

    UK Air Defence is definitely understated just like the Emperors New Clothes.

    Whats noticeable is the lack of numbers.

    Incompetent, treasonous, irresponsible, negligent and what are our beloved leaders doing tonight ? Debating illegal immigration, it’s HMG no1 priority.

    Is Rwanda safe ? I have no idea but this country certainly isn’t with these clowns in charge.

    • And as one clown car is packed up to leave no10, another will come round the corner to unpack….

      Westminster is full of bloody useless clowns!

    • Without a detection system such as radar having the weapon is useless. Air defence is a weapon system from detection to acquisition to targeting and accurately destroying. Not easy for a civil servant or civilian to understand
      Media should be educational about defence which is UK closest threat.

  3. I really think it’s time we purchase a pair of Samp T air defence batteries for some longer range air defence coverage.

    • What is the more dangerous for UK?

      I think submarine and aerial cruise missiles can be covered Sky Sabre.
      SAMP i think it is in no man’s land.for UK.
      Think an ABM system (Arrow-3/Standard class) would be better.

      • Arrow 3 would definitely be more useful for the UK mainland defence where as SAMP/T would be more useful for deployed UK forces. Actually SAMP/T and Arrow 3 would offered excellent layered approach much like the now German lead sky shield project using Arrow 3 for outlet layer and Patriot for middle layer defence.

      • My thinking is SAMP would have commonality with the royal navy so lower costs of missiles and with the upcoming block 2 variant of the missiles It would have arrow like capabilities.

        • I’d tend to agree.

          Fixed Ceptor on bases with a few mobile units to mix things up. The missiles are no that expensive so we could afford a lot of shots.

          SAMPT units would make an attack very dangerous. But is this what the Ceptor MR project is actually about?

          • sea ceptor and sky sabre both use the CAMM missile, and that can be repurposed as a foxed location assets, but currently land based AA is vehicle mounted

          • Yes, I know that!

            But there are at least models of containerised versions about!

            It doesn’t require a lot to launch CAMM – compressed gas that can be provided in a number of ways and a laptop can do the job.

            It was a core design requirement that the infrastructure was kept very simple.

        • No way that a SAMP block 2 can have Arrow 3 capabilities it would need to be a much larger missile.

          Note that for UK unless the French turn enemies do not need to destroy short range ballistic missiles, but medium and long range ones.
          Kaliningrad to London is 1400km that is basically the distance between Israel and Iran.

  4. Is CAMM better suited on land, as in sky sabre, or at sea, as in sea Ceptor? I understand it’s the same missile but radar, etc. Is there a difference?

      • CAMM is radar and sensor agnostic. The system needs target info and a way to see the CAMM missile in the air. The system then calculates future intercept point in 3D space. It passes mid course updates via data link to the missile to fly to that point. Once there the missile goes active and homes on its own.
        The info comes from a regular surveillance radar spinning around on a mast. You don’t need a dedicated target tracker following the target even better use an AESA radar with LPI. Its a massive plus as the target wont know its been engaged until the missile goes active shortly before homing in on the target from a few Km away, well within the no escape zone.

        The Sabre AD control system can interface with anyone’s radar…even Patriot.

    • Like to see if the CAMM or ASRAAM can be fitted into a Iron Dome 4*5 type launcher or the later into a NASAM style launcher? The missiles are already here just not enough launchers and the will/money to purchase them! Is CAMM-MR still in development?
      Containerised CAMM could potentially go right across the fleet, as well as on land, truck, rail, barge and LOSV (large optionally manned vessel). All UK bases should have some GBAD protection and at least have counter drone and the rest of the country under some sort of umbrella that can be readily deployable and doesn’t necessarily involve tying up T45s for UK land defence.

  6. How many Sky Sabre complete units do with have? ie command/radar/tracker launcher combined? I bet ever major NATO country as more ground based air defence than we do. And i also bet we do not hold many missiles/rounds for it.

    • Also we sent some sky sabre to Poland so I bet we don’t gave more than 1 battery in the UK. I also think there is a battery in the Falklands

      • so that is it, 3 sets of it, one regiments worth? thats it for the entire UK armed forces so no ground based air defence at any air field and all we have deployed, is that a joke?

        • Yes.
          And add 12RA with the SHORAD role.
          A Reserve Regiment exists but don’t know if they have launchers.
          The AD cuts were back in 2006 when there were 7 Regiments, 2 Rapier, 2 HVM, plus 3 Reseve TA Regs. And the 4 RAF Reg Sqns
          All cut down by the then Labour government who didn’t think enemies in the desert would have missiles or air power.

      • And each launcher only has 8 missiles right? Which means in a modern war scenario it would be saturated very easily.

        I hope we have more than 3 launchers but the MOD is being oddly tight lipped about the number of them, so not sure we actually have 3 yet as only 1 has been seen

        • 24 launchers in theory – each battery is going to consist of more than 1 but as you say they are being tight lipped so numbers aren’t being fulfilled.

          Not a great situation particularly given the lack of area defence options but certainly more than 3 individual launchers (which are always used in groups).

          • You would think so but the pictures from Poland was a single unit and the same from the Falklands. They were also far enough apart (over a year) that they could easily be the same single unit. Hard to think its manufacturing issues as the missiles already exist and the tubes are going to be pretty much the same as the navy ones, so maybe lack of funds, who knows.

          • We are buying/have bought 3 ‘batteries’. In the UK an air defense battery consists of two fire groups, each fire group with CAMM will have 3 launchers and 1 radar. Basically we have 6 batteries with one sent down south and one sent to Europe.
            I did catch a rumor that the government was in emergency buying more launchers and radars of an specified amount in silence following the Russian invasion. For me I’d like to see 12 batteries (normal batteries) of CAMM bought with 8 always being kept in the UK on almost a QRA type system, have one deployed in Lossiemouth and 7 others in bases near critical sites for rapid deployment, the other 4 can be for the Falklands and foreign deployment. Add onto this the procurement of the MR with Poland variant and buy 4 batteries of that for coverage of larger areas and potentially even short range ballistic missile defense.
            We are fortunate enough that we are protected buy a wall of allies, all of which take air defense seriously, which any Russian missile would have to go through first. We are also out of range of all Russias current* theatre ballistic missiles and any Russian warship would first have to escape the Baltics whilst being attacked from every side. However, as a citizen (or more correctly a subject) of the UK I can’t help but feel vulnerable with how limited our practical air defenses are, especially in an age where cruise missiles and super long range drones are now available to even terror groups.

      • There are 4 Fire Batteries. Each is split into 2 Fire Groups, I’d read each of 3 or 4 launchers.
        I understand the FI deployment is actually a Fire Group, with the other Fire Group of that Battery covering the Poland deployment.
        So that leaves 3 other UK Batteries, which are meant to deploy with the army.

  7. So when it comes to national air defence, we have a local air defence that covers the local area denial of 16 miles per battery? a sea-based air defence that is off defending other nations, carrier strike groups, exercises or PIP/refits? And an air force that’s spread thin due to airframe decommissioning, air defence roles for other nations, maintenance, exercises etc. Oh, and budget cutting. Any corrections anyone wants to make? I know there’s the ‘Ground Based Air Defence’ project, but that only got the first approval last August.

    Oh, lightning doesn’t have Meteor, yet.

    • Small point..its 16 miles each direction with launchers say a mile apart so probably a 35 mile coverage. But yea..t’s pretty thin indeed and should be expanded. Sub launch cruise missiles from Hebrides or Western approaches are probably the greatest threat as QRA response wouldnt be quick enough. Every major air and naval base should fall under the umbrella. ..probably 8 sites ?

      • If the radar is set up in a suitable place the launchers could be five miles away in each of three directions, with all launchers able to defend the radar which would be the number one target as once it’s gone the launchers aren’t much use.

      • My train of thought was that the threat would come from over the sea in a rough direction if it were a submarine-launched cruise missile, reducing the coverage to a 16-mile range. Land Ceptor is a local area denial from all directions, so it would be the last layer of defence if you don’t have one of those phalanx on a trailer. That’s what my thinking was.

      • Main issue is 16 miles is significantly shorter range than glide missiles and therefore all it will be able to do is target the missiles themselves and not the launching jet, meaning easily saturated.

        Domestic defence it’s not really a problem as we have the rest of nato between us and any potential enemy but if our troops were deployed overseas we would need help from other nations to properly defend the ground forces. Especially as the RAF is now too small to be able to provide any reasonable level of continuous coverage over a battlefield (especially when they also need to provide close air support). If the reliance is on a QRA style defense from a friendly air field instead of continously in air coverage then they would likely arrive too late.

        As was seen in Iraq/ afgan the US priorities it’s own forces and so coverage was not always available. We can’t just work on the assumption they will be there.

        • The rest of NATO concept doesn’t work for sub launched cruise missiles…probably the main day 1 conventional threat against the UK.

          Air launched glide bombs against uk bases should be managed by RAF intercepting launch aircraft….provided the RAF has mass.

          I agree…the defence of UK should in no way be reliant on the US.

          A top 5 global defence spender should be able to adequately defend its own airspace, especially given the relatively small area involved compared to others.

          So many gaps.. so few fingers

      • Add C3, Logistics, and Intell sites to those. You could argue at least 30 locations need some sort of point or area defence if the threat is that great.

    • F35 with the current AMRAAM provides an air defence capability only matched by F22. Harrier and Tornado GR4 only had self-defense capability with sidewinder and for Tornado ASRAAM in it final few years of service. You have to look at the threat and our geographical location. We are surrounded by NATO nations. Russia doesn’t have the capability or political will to try and strike the UK when it can’t defeat its neighbour. And nothing is in drone range. Unless Denmark suddenly takes a major dislike for the UK.

      • BOOM!

        And that is the kicker.
        There are a metric s**t tonne of NATO allies that someone like ivan would need to go through first to get to a launch position.
        Sea launch missiles from a sub or air launch from bombers would be the priority to kill in wartime before they launched. Norway, Finland and Sweden for the Air launch stuff and killing subs with help from UK and NATO ASW.

        • People forget. Like really forget, that it isn’t going to be our QRA Typhoons and one T45 against the entire massed forces of Russia. NATO, plus US forces provides an enormous deterrent and capability.

      • The standard Tornado F3 loadout was 4 x AMRAAMs and 2 x AIM-9/ASRAAMs. Later the F3s got the dual launcher fit over the main drop tanks. So they could carry an extra pair of AIM-9/ASRAAMs.

        Once the F3 got AMRAAM it became a totally different animal. With the Foxhunter/AMRAAM combination, Tornado could finally do its intended role properly, which was long range bomber interdiction. Which in most BVR scenarios, put it ahead of both the F14s and F15s of that era. The main advantage the F14 and F15 had, was that they could carry more AMRAAMs.

        I have an issue with the main point of your logic. Yes, we have a strong NATO “guarding” our southern, eastern and to an extent our northern borders. The same cannot be said for the West! We have a neutral RoI that provides bugger all warning, let alone any form of defence. This is the weak back door (Achilles heel if you like) that could be exploited, if an enemy wanted to attack the UK and NATO in general. A pre-emptive strike from the West would be hard to stop.

        The wide spread expectation is that Russian subs, would launch cruise missiles from either the North Sea or the North Atlantic. But first they need to get to a position to launch. Which means they have to circumnavigate NATO’s ASW screens. Which would be no small feat.

        However, there is now another option!

        Iran has already showcased a number of containerised delivery systems. These use standard 20 or 40ft ISOs. Which can contain anti-ship cruise missiles, land attack cruise missiles, short ranged ballistic missiles and drones. Last year Iran did a number of demos. One of which used a converted 3.5t truck as well as an articulated lorry towing a 40ft ISO. The 40ft ISO contained around 15 drones, whilst the small lorry had around 5. Put a number of these ISOs on a ship, you could easily swamp a Country’s normal peace time air defence.

        Again this delivery system could be used against the UK, where a ship sailing North up the Atlantic, ripple fires a swarm of Shahed type drones at the UK. With a range of 1000km and flying at a low height. They would be very difficult to detect until they got close to their targets. When coming in from the West. Although they only carry a small 100kg warhead. The Shahed 136 has caused significant damage to Ukrainian iinfrastructure, services and military bases.

        Iran is very good at giving these systems to 3rd parties, so they don’t get the blame, e.g. the Houthis. I believe there is a very strong case for beefing up the air defences that look West. We have a number of radars that look West. But the coverage is incomplete due to the RoI. It is radar dead zone, that could easily be exploited, if someone wanted to attack the UK.

        In past year, Russia have both sailed ships and surfaced submarines in RoI territorial waters. The RoI do not have the capability of searching for or tracking submarines. They had to ask the UK for help. But it does quite starkly highlight how easily an attack from the West could be carried out! This could be mitigated with additional AEW flying up the Irish Sea, or even in the Atlantic. But there will still need to be a means to back up the QRA jets. As the current number will quickly expend their missiles against the swarm!

        • Right. I can talk about the Tornado F3 all day long 😄 With ASRAAM/AMRAAM it was superb. Especially once the full mid course guidance was fitted in 2004. Link 16 and stage 4 Foxhunter gave it excellent situational awareness for it’s day. A lesson learnt for the future. Situational awareness is king. And goes a long way for any lack of agility or performance. Towed radar decoy and the excellent RHWR gave it very good defensive aids. As for the western approaches. What you say is true. The problem is, how do those container launched drones get In that position in the first place. We/NATO the Americans have a vast Intelligence network. Nations can’t nip via the back door with the intention of striking a nation like the UK without getting caught in the act. No nation can plan an act like that without anyone noticing. It just doesn’t work that way.

          • That vast intelligence network was unable to prevent the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks, or the attacks in Europe.
            Shipping containers are a common sight in smaller vessels where they are used for storage of work equipment by the crew, some vessels even use them as accommodation on deck.
            I recall many years ago suggesting that if an off the shelf toy drone could deliver drugs into prisons, it could be used to deliver payloads etc and was told it would never happen, yet here we are.

            It wouldn’t be too difficult to load containers on a civilian ship and book it into Felixstowe or Avonmouth etc and then sail it right up to the doorstep without suspicion. It’s not as if the containers would have “This Way Up – Attack drones” on the outside.

            Plus the argument that “we have NATO allies between us and Russia” doesn’t hold out either.
            Any preemptive cruise missile strike would be through them before they realised, Ballistic missiles would go over them anyway and whilst we may know about them, we couldn’t stop them.

            And let’s be honest, we can’t spot and stop rubber dinghies crossing the channel when we know they are coming, what’s the chances of us spotting something we aren’t looking for! And of course with the f35b being based at Marham, instead of Yeovil there isn’t a QRA in the west of the country and navy vessels destore before coming into port so any vessels in Pompey or guz wouldn’t be able to do anything.

            Perhaps the operational RN f35b sqns should be redeployed to Yeovil or Culdrose and provide a QRA from there?

        • A suprise launch will catch anyone out.
          Look at Poland. Missiles overflying its territory and it wasnt ready to intercept or launch against them and Poland are pretty much a frontline nation!

          INT is king in these situations. Hopefully we would get some heads up that a target of interest was about and that it is a threat. In which case land 43 onboard for a Sea Safety Ship Check!

      • Famous last words Robert. Enemies have a nasty habit of coming up with sneaky cunning plans. Either mother aircraft/ships/submarines etc popping up or coming under the radar somewhere N/NW of the UK & launching salvoes of missiles or drones at our vital assets. Or ballistic missiles for which we have few defences.

        If Carlsberg did complacency, they’d still not be in the same league as British or HMG complacency.

        • Ballistic missiles…we never had any defences anyway except for Fylingdales that gave you a warning and enough time to for one last bonk followed by a ham sandwich, and a cheeky tin of beer!

    • But, but, but… …HMG always tells us our forces are “Agile”! That must count for something.

      I take “Agile” as “we’re lying to you”.

  8. We don’t have much in the way of SAM defences, but do we need them? It is arguable that Iran’s attack on Israel was only approved because.its leaders knew, from Hezbollah’s experience, that Israel’s defences would largely defeat the drones/ missiles. Without such defences, Israel would have felt compelled to launch a massive and accurate counterstrike which Iran dare not risk.
    Just as the UK relies on deterrence to prevent a nuclear attack rather than an ABM system, might our resources be better spent on more long range conventional strike capability than defensive systems?

    • Aah so we would need an actual serious ability to counter strike if we don’t have those defences if such a deterrent is to actually mean anything.

      • Yes, if you get hit first, with anything, are you able to stand up afterwards and fight back? Why wait to get hit? Why have obvious gaps or weaknesses in your conventional defences? The nuclear detterence is absolutely last resort.

    • With respect to direct UK defence we don’t need to cover the whole UK but we do need to cover strategic bases including major ship building areas in Scotland and Cumbria and for political reasons I guess London as well.

      We also need good coverage for where ever our land forces are fighting which is the point being made right now by the Ukranians. Glide bombs can travel so far that we need more than 16 miles range CAMM- ER would be better but CAMM-MR which isn’t available would be required as part of each air defence unit to keep aircraft away.

    • Lets be honest it’s more accurate description to say we don’t have any GBAD. The role of the single army Sky Sabre regiment is to support a deployed military force. One battery per deployed brigade. It’s also naïve to believe that just because you’re on the Western side of Europe your protected from air attack. The Russians have a full spectrum of missile capabilities including ballistic missiles and air and sea launched cruise missiles. Meanwhile we’ve bunched all our fast jets into 3 airfields and our warships into 3 ports. If the Russians wanted to they could take out 2 of our 3 armed services in an afternoon. It would seem rational to have at least some capability to counter that.
      Also we have no GBAD for our forces in Cyprus and they live very close to a very unstable region which is full of drones and missiles. It’s not just an error not to do something about that it’s criminally negligent.

      • Ideally, we would have both comprehensive GBAD and a long range non nuclear strike capability. We have very little of the former, a bit more of the latter with submarine launched Tomahawk and Storm Shadow. The problem is that ABM systems are expensive and not very effective. Even stealthy cruise missiles, launched en masse, will probably penetrate defences. Dispersal and hardening of military sites might be a better way of achieving greater resilience.
        Having a survivable large scale strike capability might be the most effective deterrent. If Ukraine had the ability to match Russia’s attacks on its cities, would Russia have taken the risk in the first place?

        • Hardening regards bunkers is an interesting one. Much was sold off after 91, some not. I also believe there are more out there than are officially acknowledged that were never sold off, mainly on the military and intell side.
          On dispersal, there was that article in the last year on UKDJ concerning more RAF interest in this area but the people and assets are still lacking.

      • I don’t think it has. To be honest. Is it needed?. The only time in the last 40 odd years RAF fast jets have used its cannon is to fire show of force rounds in Afghanistan at Taliban before dropping a Paveway 4. Fortunately. Being an external gun pod on the F35B and C, it could be purchased under a UOR if required and fitted at very short notice.

          • Easier said than done. Tracking and engaging slow-moving targets isn’t easy. Especially if they have a low radar cross section. Pilots have to sort the targets, so each pilot knows which target he is engaging. In F35, the avionics do a very good job of doing that. But you need missiles to take out multiple targets at once. Expensive. Yes, but cheaper than the drones getting through. Gun engagements are dangerous and difficult to pull off. F22 used missiles to take out that Chinese balloon over the US.

          • We have lots of ASRAAMs, and still very much in production. The longer-term solution will likely be drones taking out drones. Still using missiles, but controlled from a F35 or a Tempest at standoff ranges. We may see laser technology on 6th gen platforms. But it’s generating the power to make them useful, and at useful ranges in any weather is the tricky part.

          • Really we need a cheapo missile to deal with the lower end threats.

            No point in using a missile capable of taking down a Mach2 aircraft to take down a 150mph drone….?

          • Depends on the value of what that cheap drone might hit rather than the cost of the drone v the SAM/AAM intercepting. A cheaper drone killer would be handy though.

          • Cheapo missiles don’t exist. You need them to be accurate and operate In any weather day or night and work with very advanced avionics and AESA radars. Maybe a more affordable solution is being worked on. I don’t no. You can guarantee somebody somewhere will be looking at solutions.

          • I’m not sure I agree with that.

            The whole point of the CAMM family was to make something that could do the good stuff without being too Gucci.

            Integrating things once done is done……we have that IP.

            So it can be done.

          • And CAMM is based on ASRAAM. That’s why we use ASRAAM. Just because a target is slow and cheap, doesn’t mean it’s easy to shoot down, harder in fact than a fast jet. Because you have to find the little buggers in the first place, find, track, and engage. It isn’t easy. And you need high end kit to do that. And do it fast and effectively. That’s why we don’t send up training aircraft with a gun to do it.

          • CAMM shares a common thought process and quite a few bits……

            But CAMM is cheaper and more effective than a lot of competitors.

            I’m afraid that I disagree that using top end missiles to shoot down small slow objects is necessary particularly when the fighters radar and keep correcting the missiles course until it attains its own target acquisition.

          • But you need a capable missile with mid course guidance to achieve that. And I think you are underestimating the complexity of shooting down drones in highly contested and demanding environments. Any Typhoon pilot will tell how demanding it is. Especially over Syria or Iraq. Trying to find tiny drones over huge amounts of air space is very not easy. It’s not as simple as strapping on a cheap weapon and off you go. If it was, we would be doing that.

          • An obvious answer would be to use something like the 70mm rocket with a guidance kit on it, such as BAe’s Advance Precision Kill Weapon System. It has shown that when launched from either the ground or from a helicopter it can be used to take out helicopters and slower moving drones.

            It might need a bit more thinking when fired from a fixed wing aircraft, which is travelling more than 400knots. The rocket uses a semi-active laser seeker. So the aircraft will require a laser designator, which is turreted, so it can track the target. The immediate issue, much like Starstreak and Martlet, is that the laser must continuously track the target for the rocket to home in on. Therefore, multiple targets must be attacked in sequence.

            But it does mean an aircraft such as Typhon could carry at least 5 APKWS rockets on a hardpoint.

          • I think the new Litening 5 targeting pod now being used by Typhoon might be up for the job. The hardest part is finding and tracking them in the first place. Especially the small slow moving drones with very low radar cross sections.

          • As I’ve mooted before the BAe APKWS seems like the perfect candidate. In tests, it has been used to shoot down drowns when fired from a F16. As a standard pod holds 7 rockets and an aircraft normally carries two pods. This would allow an aircraft to shoot down more drones, than using the traditional and expensive air to air missiles.

    • CAMM-ER is certainly able to fit on the current launchers. I think the box is the same width and they can accommodate the extra length.
      CAMM-MR, I think, is a bit wider. Poland want it to fit in Patriot tubes and twin pack, I haven’t found a mention of it in the standard MBDA iLauncher.

        • Wish they could reverse-engineer CAMM-ER or even CAMM-MR and make an air-launched missile from it. A European AMRAAM competitor in the same family would be very useful.
          Agree, we know nothing of the actual shape of CAMM-MR, but it is supposed to twin pack, setting parameters for the folded diameter. I think the Poles have said they want it for launch from the same system as PAC-3 missiles, which puts it in around 5m long and over 200mm diameter, much more than CAMM-ER.

        • There was an image of CAMM-MR shown at the Polish press presentation. Where they agreed to buy CAMM for their local air defence system for the A140 ship. It is bigger than the ER version. Where they showed a two cell launcher in a Mk41 VLS.

          As a rough guess I’d say it’s designed for the 100km+ engagement range.

  11. The government should give the UK GBAD system has a priority ,Sky Sabre units are in Poland and Falklands island’s .Can well unstand been in the Falklands but sure Poland can look after them selfs when it comes to AD. IT’S Crazy the UK has no GBAD system in place .More Sky Sabre units please. 🙏

  13. Since Bloodhound went out of service in 1991 the UK has not had anything longer ranged than Rapier and now its replacement CAMM.
    Reductions in UKADGE are nothing new …its been like this for over 30 years.

    But what is the actual threat to the UK?
    ivan launching from subs or bombers?
    Thats an article 5 straight away.
    In a time of high threat there would be a lot of NATO countries to go through first before getting to the UK. ivan would get one chance to launch before NATO air knocks its bombers out of the sky. NATO ASW would be out tracking everything and anything that moves. Again maybe one sub getting a few shots off before it gets hammered…

    A surprise attack with no warning would be the worst outcome but be honest what are the chances of that?

    • I used to have this position and commented here that IF the DIS thought the threat that severe more would be done with UKAD as their advice would go up the CoC to ministers. So there has been very little emphasis in this area.

      Now, I’m not so sure and I would still like to see greater emphasis in GBAD, despite agreeing with your points. Missiles, Cyber, Nukes, CNI sabotage are all Russia realistically has and we should look again at all four.

      • I’m not entirely sure we need ABM defence as unlike most other countries we actually have our deterrent. Let’s face it if Russia launched anything Ballistic at us would we actually wait to see which type of warhead it has ? That idea just negates the MAD concept.
        My main fear would be CM’s or Air launched ASM”s from Submarines or Bombers, there are some very important targets in U.K and hitting them would have catastrophic results.

        • Yep. I could list at least 30 crucial sites, probably more, that could do with some sort of coverage. As GB says, the threat is from the North, NW, and West, SW. Not so much east.

        • The cost of ABM especially.
          Cyber is classified.
          CNI also classified with things like RFA Proteus a start.
          Can Russian cruise missiles reach us from their “bastions” in the Barents and White Sea?

          • Which is why I asked about the Russian Bastions in their waters, not NATOs.

            I have a fair idea just how comprehensive NATOs, so primarily US, UK, IUSS and other ASW and ISTAR assets are and how they are networked to identify most Russian subs headed west into the Atlantic.
            It’s more comprehensive than many realise, as is our intelligence reach.

          • So maybe one Oscar gets through… It has a minimal missile load and once it starts chucking them out it won’t last long

    • Someone once told me that there is a target in the UK that if it was attacked by even conventional HE missiles would pretty well eradicate the UK over the next week or so.
      We have either a U.K. GBAD or we don’t and by ensuring that the only systems we have are portable for the Army and Navy we have effectively chosen not.

      I have said this before so I’ll say it again, we are spending a hell of a lot of money upgrading Sea Viper and adding Sea Ceptor to the T45’s. Why not just build 4 or 5 land based Radar sites using the improved Sampson and the Thales SMART L-MM/N. That gives you decent warning range, targeting control and add hardened fixed VLS for Aster 30’s and CAMM of various types.

      Why reinvent the wheel, you could even just start at Portsdown.

    • I’d mostly agree with that. It’s probably worth pointing out that most nations that have a land-based static nuclear deterrent (i.e. ICBM silos) seem to experience very poor personnel morale, lack of readiness, safety and security failures, and corruption- because they’re sitting around waiting for something that’s never supposed to happen. I don’t imagine that a static home islands GBAD network would be any different to that.
      I would focus GBAD on an umbrella for our expeditionary forces and outposts (Baltics commitments, Falklands, Cyprus being the ones that immediately spring to mind), especially mid-long range stuff that we really don’t have. Ukraine seems to be showing that you need to be able to threaten launch aircraft out to 100 km + to ensure safety for ground troops, and Sky Sabre may be half that at best?
      Same goes for sea-based systems, extend the range of Aster30- it seems rather short-legged compared to other systems.

      • Aster 30 is really the equivalent to the US Navy’s SM-2. The Block 1NT will give it an additional boost. To massively increase its range and maximum engagement height. Firstly you need to replace the Sylver A50 VLS with the strike length Sylver A70. This is needed, as you require a much bigger and longer 1st stage booster.

        This was pretty much how SM-6 was created. The first version was just an SM-2 with a monster 1st stage booster. Later versions have increased the diameter of the 2nd stage motor and are looking to maximize the available space with the strike length Mk41 cell. With these increases in dimensions, they are looking to push SM-6 to over 150,000ft engagements, with the goal of countering hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs).

        • Thanks DB!
          I presume that’s why the RN are only going with the Block1 upgrade, as there’s no way that the T45s will be seeing a Sylver A70 upgrade!
          Something to bear in mind for future T83 though- which makes sense to be fair. I imagine the (presumably) bigger Aster 30 Block2 will be the SM-6 equivalent, with the wider and longer rocket booster.

    • The rot started when labour government in 1975 got rid of 36hvy air defence regiment RA, with thier THUNDERBIRD 2s.

      • What’s a puppet cartoon doing the RA? I know thunderbird 2 was good but not sure airdefence is its role. Perhaps thunderbird 1 or 3.

      • Falklands …we knew it was coming but didn’t have the assets in place to stop it.
        Again INT is king.
        Get the INT bit right and you can act accordingly.
        Israel got lots of warning on recent attacks because the INT delivered.
        We even let ivan know a terrorist attack was inbound before it happened.

  14. The question probably refers to land based protection the likes of iron dome or patriot type defence for our major assets and cities so answer unclear.

  15. The true answer from a threat such as the one Israel faced a few weeks back is nothing, absolutely Diddy Squat. Our armed forces have been underfunded for decades.

  16. Don’t the RAF possess anything for airfield defence?

    In fact what systems does the UK have to deploy to protect strategic military sites, ordnance factories, dockyards, power stations including nuclear ones, cities etc, etc? Zilch I bet.

    • Not any more. The Regiment were retasked as a purely ground based defense force. With the Royal Artillery tasked with air defence. Though they are trained to used Starstreak.

  17. Not exactly an Iron Dome I’d suggest. Come on that’s a mixed bag of weapons designed for other purposes, not homeland defence.

  19. I think looking at the photo in the post that the air defence weapons systems are land based . What exactly does the UK have as air defence for our cities , similar to what Ukraine and Isreal are using ?? Or nothing.

  20. Sort of related. There’s news coming from the Red Sea that the French Frigate Alsarce has fired off at least 15 Asters (15 & 30) to take out drones, anti-ship cruise missiles and perhaps more importantly, at least 3 ballistic missiles!

    Why is this good news? Well the Aster 30s the ship uses are the same Block 0 that the T45 uses. Furthermore, the ship uses the Thales Herakles PESA radar. This is a mechanically rotated array hidden inside a four sided pyramid fairing. Though I have a feeling it is just two arrays mounted back to back as per Sampson. It also has a field of regard of 0 to +70 degrees. So like most ships, the radar has a blind spot directly above it. It is not a powerful as Sampson nor does have the multibeam flexibility. But it seems to have done job, which is all that’s needed to help protect the ship.

    • According to Navy Lookout we have also shot down a ballistic missle with A30! it was done around 11pm local time last night.

  21. Why would Lt Col Tobias Ellwood MP ask this question?
    He must know the answer – as well as military service in Reg Army and AR, he was the Minister for Defence Veterans, Reserves and Personnel at the MoD from 2017 to 2019.
    More recently he chaired the Defence Select Committee from 2020 to 2023.

  22. Take this site off line it’s ridiculous how you tell the world we are wide open it’s like you want us to be attacked

  23. All this talk and so little action. It seems NATO and UK especially needs to get its act together for area anti missile defence.
    At present some Northern NATO members are already fitting Area defence but the UK cant rely on them. With Russia now producing at war pace we are going to be running out of Missiles after a few months at most. Can we rely on the French for instance launching from their stock of missiles when they detect a missile flying over their territory headed to say Plymouth? I doubt it.
    I notice that Spain is under spending a lot on defence; which means Gibraltar needs its own local defence.
    Our weakness is from being outflanked by sea and air from the West. Ireland of course sees itself as a neutral country which is in effect actually a hostile act towards NATO and the UK in particular. When Biden is gone, if we are lucky we might get some sense out of them.
    Meanwhile a slow build up is better than nothing. It helps to avoid block obsolescence. 1.25bn per year on a national shield would help.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here