During a parliamentary session on 18 November 2024, Labour MP Damien Egan raised concerns about the state of the UK’s domestic air defences.
Noting increased scrutiny of the nation’s air defence capabilities, Egan asked Defence Secretary John Healey for updates on efforts to strengthen them and assurances that adequate resources would be allocated to secure British airspace.
Egan queried: “With our domestic air defences under increased scrutiny, will the Secretary of State update us on the work being done to strengthen them and give assurances that our Government understand that our forces will need the resources available to secure our skies?”
In response, Healey highlighted the critical role of the ongoing strategic defence review in addressing the nation’s air defence needs.
He explained: “This is one of the areas that the strategic defence review is looking at closely: it has set up 26 review and challenge panels and is drawing in almost 150 external experts from the whole range of defence.”
Healey emphasised the importance of adapting to rising threats and taking a comprehensive approach to assessing the UK’s future defence needs, “With rising threats at this point, this is part of the long, hard look we have to take at the capabilities we need in order to keep Britain safe in future and to be strong abroad.”
The strategic defence review is expected to play a central role in shaping the nation’s approach to ensuring security at home and maintaining strength on the international stage. Egan’s call for assurances reflects broader concerns about whether the UK’s defence strategy and funding will adequately address evolving challenges in an increasingly complex security landscape.
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
Surely the solutions to this issue are either purchase SAMP/T, ideally improving the existing radar, or develop CAMM-MR very quickly and get it into service soon.
There isn’t really another option when it comes to European missile defence systems.
SAMP/T would be a quick off the shelf solution, we already have stockpiles of missiles good to go.
Shared inventories with the Navy and maybe then having a greater pool of missiles. Common sense. Same for CAMM, too.
CAMM-MR seems like the better solution to me, seeing as we already have a land based CAMM system, integration and training would be easier as well.
CAMM-MR would still require a new launching system and probably a new radar to take advantage of it’s increased range. It might share a lot with normal CAMM but it won’t be ‘plug and play’ so to speak.
Well CAMM MR is not developed yet or with a date and although the range is increased there is no indication yet of max altitude, as both CAMM and CAMM ER have a max altitude of only 10km ( around 32800 feet), vs ASTERs 20-25km ( 65,000 to 80,000 feet). That altitude engagement envelope is quite important. There is also no indication that CAMM MR will have an anti ballistic missile capability and the UK really is missing a land based anti ballistic missile capability.
SAMP/T is ready to go, has a ABM capability and would share common stock with the navy, it would also provide that very high altitude engagement and our enemy’s do tend to use a lot of very fast high altitude missiles.
Domestic air defences need to cover various ranges. CAMM and SAMP/T cover a limited area and might be fine for SHORAD and even out to medium range, but if you are worried about longer range missiles, you need longer range responses. We saw Germany picking the Israeli Arrow missiles. Looking at the layered Israeli solution stack should tell us that CAMM(ER/MR) and Aster 30 B1/1NT aren’t enough. It was developed for a far smaller country than us, and they still don’t see Iron Dome as the be all and end all. Nor should we see CAMM or Aster that way.
Hmme
Well…Isreal also have a lot of very low tech drones to contend with.
We’d be significantly better off with SAM-PT and CAMM-variants than nothing.
I don’t think we do need a location specific radar as CAMMis source agnostic to target and track data – it just needs to know where to go and what to do.
Maybe CAMM-EX becomes a thing!
The problem is when you go beyond Aster 30 B1 NT you then enter the realms of orbital booster and that costs a profound amount of money. After all the longest range tradition air defence missile is SM6 at 130nm vs asters 90nm. The isreali arrow three is a multi stage orbital booster with an exoatmospheric kill vehicle..that is why it’s got a 2500km range..it’s a space rocket same as the US GBI and the only way Isreal developed it was because the US essentially gave free access to the tec from its space and GMD programme as well as paying about 1.5 billion dollars of the development costs.
SAMP/T is the only solution. It’s the most affordable and capable and fits in with our existing air defence. The radars can also que CAMM ER as well so it’s good to go.
A possible limited purchase of Arrow 3 as part of a wider European ABM system is also a no brainer, just tap on to the German order. Longer term we can look at Aster 30 blk 2 as well.
A few billion would cover all this and close up our single biggest defence gap.
The UK military. Fitted with review panels but only for actual weaponry.
Well they need to do something quickly other countries are making plans for war Germany has already started making plans briefing Business and checking there lorry drivers that they have enough. Sweden sending out leaflets to all there citizens UK no plans We defiantly need more Air Defence and soon Other than putting a type 45 in the London area we only have short range and if they send over 100 drones all of them would get through Ok we have Sky Sabre but I am sure that wouldn’t last long before we run out of missiles
Colin the thought of the UK going up against Russian is frightening given the state of our armed services and our nuclear deterrent…look at the recent test of the deterrent and how it plopped into the ocean…Hmmm type 45 how many of those are fully operational? You really think the type 45 could deal with MERV warheads…we will be a smudge on the map. Moreover, don’t forget the early warning systems in the UK are designed to warn the US of imminent nuclear strikes (which country do you think they will wipe out first). Quite why we hosted early warning systems for the US without a reciprocal air defence system from the US is beyond me…. I would like to see more effort put into diplomacy to end the Ukraine/Russia war…I would add that Volodymyr Zelenskyy is a former comedian but the joke appears to be on us. I’ll get castigated by the usual suspects on here as a Russian apologist but I’m not…If the EU and NATO had not pushed up to Russia’s borders Ukraine could have been a neutral country…but no they had to keep pushing the Russian’s…this is similar to the Cuban missile crisis which the US did not like in their own backyard so why expect Russia to be happy when the EU and NATO comes right up to their front door. The use of US and British missiles against Russian soil is a very bad idea indeed – only a brain dead politician like Biden and an equally brain dead midmit like two-tier Sir Kier could have dreamt this up.
True but we are also the furthest away country in Northern Europe from any threat. The Russian navy is still not up to much and every time they send a submarine into the Atlantic it seems to be tracked.
I don’t think we need to be doing fall out drills.
Spreading around messages like the Germans and Swedes are doing is a good way to spook the population which is exactly what Putin wants.
Well we would need air defences in the next couple of weeks with these insane decisions to allow US and British missiles to be used in Russian territory….Our moronic politicians are intent in dragging us into WW3. I’m no fan of Putin but quite why we don’t have peace missions and dialogue is beyond me (it would save the lives of many young men). The UK will be a smudge on the map if we push this to WW3 (us with it). Why do our politicians continue to drag us into these foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with the UK. We should make sure we are self sufficient, having a military capable of defending ourselves and enough manufacturing, energy and a medical and pharma industry to support ourselves…..wait on a second yes we sold all of that to China, India, the US and many other countries. Lastly, our last nuclear weapons test failed badly with the missile plopping into the ocean….this is meant to be our insurance policy and it couldn’t function properly…..probably due to underfunding by our UK government. Therefore, we don’t have the funds for proper air defences unless we joined the US in some form of global defence umbrella…too late for that now unfortunately. Although, the US will base early warning systems in the UK (for the benefit of the US). It’s ironic that the most vociferous people in favour of these kinds of wars are unpatriotic liberals like Tony Blair, David Cameron, Michael Gove and their acolytes. Centre right patriots are always very careful how they deploy our armed services or get into wars. Look at the decisions of the Thatcher government with the Falklands conflict…they deliberated about the need to go for war…they gave the armed services what they needed and they allowed the armed services to do their job and the war was purely in the national interest. However, Margaret Thatcher training in the Physical sciences (Chemistry) so she could analyse things in great depth…something modern politicians cannot do. We are all doomed if the midwit two-tier Sir Kier gets his way….
Another Russian bot?
Couple of points..there is no air defence system in existence that can protect a nation from another nation’s strategic deterrent, that’s the point of strategic deterrent..they are guaranteed to blow through any possible imagined defence and effectively destroy the other nation, early warning is more about the elements of the nuclear triad that are vulnerable to first strike and launching them, not defending against a nuclear attack.
The ballistic missile defences we do have are US supported and based in the parts of Europe that they can have an impact on. So that’s those that may see short range ballistic missile attack..they UK would only be attacked by intermediate range ballistic missiles or ICBMs which are for all practical purposes unstoppable. The UK needs mobile ballistic missile defences to protect its wider interests from short and medium range ballistic missile attack…
As for Russia and not using long range weapons..unfortunately that is a question with many answers none of which are easy..if Russia wins in Ukriane it will push further and at some point it’s likely to trigger a war with a NATO nation, Putins foreign policy paradigm makes this inevitable. Which means allowing UK and NATO weapons to be used against Russia and that risk must be balanced against the risk of Russian winning and its next adventure causing a war..why is this.
1) fundamental Russian warfighting doctrine is close to china’s warfighting doctrine. In that they do not see a difference between peace and war in the way the west does..every action is offensive, be that political, economic, industrial etc. this mean both these nations if they see you as competitor will see you as an enemy and will make sub kinetic war on you all the time..at some point this will be pushed, we saw this with the deployment of a weapon of mass destruction in Salisbury, that was not about killing one person that was about a sub kinetic offensive operation against the UK, show the population of the Uk it’s government could not protect it and to show the UK government that Russia was willing to go further than it..even before Ukraine Russia was attacking the UK and telling it who was superior. This mean that at some point Russia will attack a NATO nation in a sub kinetic way that will trigger a war ( how many chemical weapon terror attacks on UK cities would Russia undertake before it pushed the line and the UK and NATO made a kinetic response)..a kinetic response would come because legally and morally NATO does not fight wars in the same sub kinetic way as Russia and china.
2) The near abroad, you mentioned NATO pushing up to Russias boarder and it would be better for Ukraine to have remained Neutral. Neutral is not a position the Russian government will tolerate for its near abroad, it requires controlled states on its boarders. Essentially it’s near abroad policies require it to subvert border nations until it controls their government…it will do this via sub kinetic warfare and if that does not work as it did not in Ukraine it will go kinetic..it’s done it in Georgia and it did exactly the same with Ukraine..I think we need to be very very clear in 2014 Ukraine was neutral and made it very clear it was going to stay neutral and had clearly stated it had no intention of ever joining NATO..it only started looking for an alliance after Russia went kinetic in 2014 and Russian went kinetic because it’s sub kinetic warfare operations had failed to turn Ukraine into a satellite controlled state and Ukraine instead wanted to be a true neutral.
3) The concept of the Russian state having sovereignty over all ethnically Russian people no matter their citizenship. This is essentially a view of sovereignty straight out of the playbook of the 3rd Reich and means that the Russian state feels it has sovereignty over ethnic russian populations anywhere. I drives interference into other states if they have a Russian population..and requires Russia interference in those states…that was one of the drivers for Russian interference in the UK. It’s why Russian has essentially invaded three European nations..Moldova, Ukrainian and Georgia and undertaken military operations against another ( our own the UK).
Because of this the only way NATO is going to prevent war is through massive deterrent and you deter by
1) having the capability ( investment in military and military industrial capacity as well as strategic infrastructure that powers military capability: food,water, transportation, energy, health).
2) show you have the ability to deploy the capability and showing the capabilities exist..this does mean sitting in front of your enemy and trailing your armies, navies and airforce before his eyes..making sure he can see he will die ( the reason the US and UK were at peace from 1815 even though up until the end of the 19c before great rapprochement even though the US was a highly expansionist aggressive empire and was desperate to invade Canada, was the the RN showing the US that if it invaded its merchant ships would be swept from the sea, china on the other had never saw a RN vessel due to treaty and had no understanding what it was facing when it went to war with the UK in the opium wars).
3) Show you have the political will to fight and fight to the end. This is fundamental Russia and china are pretty convinced that the west w can be beaten in war due to lack of political will…Germany invaded France in 1939, because it knew it had no political will to fight ( France had a far larger army and navy and on paper should have murdered the third Reich…one of the reasons the Soviet Union never invaded Europe and fell in the Cold War was its conviction that the key European powers would fight to the death of everyone..strengthend by they UK fighting so hard to retake the Falklands..that had a massive impact on the soviet view of winning in Europe).
This means that not allowing Ukraine to use US and UK weapons could actually be more deadly in the long run..simply put Putin will push harder the more political weakness he sees..and because of his world view he will push…better to show him the gun to his head, explain we will pull the trigger and look like we will pull the trigger…yes that may risk war..but if we don’t he’s coming anyway.
I’m confused, what’s the difference between Ukraine using Chally 2 in the Kursk region of Russia and them using Storm Shadow over the border. Both are U.K. made weapon systems.
It seems Russia can dish the dirt but can’t take it! When a country such as Ukraine has been invaded by Russia. Surely they should be allowed to use any weapon at its disposal to defend itself?
Theoretically you might be right but all that really matters is what Russia will do as a consequence…How about something novel like diplomacy to resolve the conflict? When were the last peace negotiations? Russia is a vast country so they might take the gamble they can survive a nuclear conflict (they land is sparsely populated so they probably could even if Moscow and St Petersburg were obliterated). However, the UK would be a charred smudge on the map if were involved. I just cannot see what is beneficial in pushing Russia to the brink. I’ll put it another way the US threatened Russia with nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis (similar situation in that NATO and the EU are knocking on the Russian front door). That was averted because the Russian’s pulled back….in that case the missiles were nuclear tipped. We are playing a dangerous game of Russian roulette when we allow our missiles to be fired into Russian – even if these are conventional missiles. Have you contemplated the fact that the Russian warning systems cannot distinguish between conventional and nuclear tipped missiles. The chance for a misunderstanding is massive and this could lead to WW3 that the US would survive but the UK specifically would be a charred smudge on the map. I say this as someone with a vested interest as I live in London and don’t fancy reaching 10’s of millions of Kelvin in a few milliseconds.
Russia would be an equally messed up smudge on the map so your point is moot. We have CASD for a reason.
No difference what so ever, selling someone guns has never been a deceleration of war in human history.
If so Germany would have declared war on the US in 1914 or 1939.
The Russians are weak and do everything they can to try and improve their position through propaganda.
With their latest Korean move they are now turning China and South Korea against them.
Nothing was mentioned of increasing the Wedgetail fleet size or a new buy of Tranche 4 Typhoons to replace the Tranche 1s? I do however, agree that the U.K. requires a National GBAD capability that is part of a layered defence network. But if you’ve got limited funds, what do you prioritize?
On one hand by increasing your AEW and fighter fleet, it gives you more flexibility for operations and deployments. But more importantly allows you to increase the mass of the operations and deployment. Thereby increasing its effectiveness and possible deterrence. But on the other hand, if you’ve nothing defending your airfields from a surprise cruise missile strike. The aircraft parked in hangars and on the pan are sitting ducks. Which could easily wipe out that deterrence.
Alternatively if you divide the funding, then you only get marginal benefits. A catch 22 situation. The only method of fixing the problem is an uplift of funding!
In a very small way, I welcome Trump getting a second term (can’t believe I said that!). As it means NATO as a whole needs to fix its funding or helm start to throw his teddies out the pram. Those that need to fix there funding includes the U.K. Do we actually meet the 2% minimum asked for, or are the figures carefully managed? Especially when you start to include Pensions, CASD and the secret services. Treasury can quite happily argue that these are all part of the Defence funding needs. But should they come from the actual defence pot, or from a separate funding stream?
Sadly you can only rely on window dressing for so long. At some point somebody will again put us to the test. Where I’m afraid we will come up wanting!
Evening DB, such a profound lack of GBAD to protect actual defence assets and personnel let alone the rest of the country, is mind blowingly stupid. Stupid-smart of smart-stupid, both. Why is Europe taking it up and the UK not getting on with it? Why the inertia? Is it really just money? Why wait to be hit? Does the UK have a false sense of its security? Have they really done a risk analysis on this of any kind? If so, share the outcomes. Unbelievable lack of urgency. And the potential of having a shared pool of Aster, CAMM, Martlet, Skystreak missiles is already there!
*or
The UK is much more secure and much further away from any threat than Europe. Germany has always been responsible for providing European air defence from the east while we track and intercept air targets over the North Sea.
Sky Sabre is also a fantastic system, far superior to almost anything else in its class. We can easily use it to defend UK targets if needed. All Uk points of defence can also be defended by warships if needed to.
I think we should have more Sky Sabre batteries as well as a theatre level/ABM capability on land but we are far from being defenceless given how far from any threats we are.
How long have we all been banging on here that the UK needs some form of air defence shield. All we can hope for now is that mad Putin is again bluffing and that buys us some time over the coming years to get something robust in place. i.e. politicians finally realise what is their first duty to the country.
ICBM/MERVs, long-range low-level cruise missiles, drones etc. etc. the threats are many. in the 1980s the threat of Ronnie Raygun’s “Star Wars” space-based defence shield stopped the Rooskies then. Maybe the combination of space-based lasers and ground-based lasers may be the way forward…if we have enough time… and we can’t rely on the Americans for at least another 4-years.
European nations are gearing up for an all-out war on the continent as Ukraine launched US-made missiles into Russia for the first time and Vladimir Putin officially lowered the threshold for Moscow to consider a nuclear strike.
Germany’s foreign minister yesterday vowed her country ‘will not be intimidated’ by Putin, just one day after German media revealed the nation will transform into a NATO staging ground if the conflict to the East should escalate.
According to a 1,000-page document entitled ‘Operationsplan Deutschland’, Germany would reportedly host hundreds of thousands of troops from NATO countries and serve as a logistics hub for sending huge quantities of military equipment, food and medicine toward the front.Finland reminded its citizens of their ‘national defence obligation’ and recently launched a new information website, while Sweden laid out a detailed guide on how to seek shelter and what to do in case of a nuclear attack.
Their instruction manuals follow similar advice issued by their Baltic neighbours Norway and Denmark, which both put out checklists for food and medicine supplies citizens should have ready. It was reported today that UK would have 15 minutes before the first missiles hit UK and we cannot stop any of them We have no plans no infrastructure set up. We have to stop this thinking that we are the Police Force for Europe we cannot even take back the Isle Of Wight