Maria Eagle MP, Minister for Defence Procurement, underscored the urgency of modernising the UK’s air and missile defence systems during a recent parliamentary debate, citing the evolving global threat environment.
Reflecting on recent geopolitical tensions, including Russia’s reckless use of intermediate-range ballistic missiles, Eagle stressed that the UK must prioritise deterrence and integrate defence capabilities across land, sea, and air.
She stated, “In this uncertain future, deterrence—not only of the nuclear kind—will form the main line of defence.”
Eagle noted that the government has already made strategic decisions to reallocate resources, such as withdrawing six outdated capabilities, saving £500 million over five years. While these decisions were aimed at rationalising spending, she made it clear that the focus remains on ensuring defence investments deliver modern and effective systems. She added, “As the hon. Gentleman will see in the new year, a path will be set out to 2.5% [of GDP] in the spring, along with the Strategic Defence Review. We are committed to it and we will get there.”
Highlighting the UK’s unique geographic position, Eagle explained that while it offers certain defence advantages, it also requires tailored solutions. She acknowledged recent reports of drones targeting RAF bases, stating, “Protection of our personnel and bases is our highest priority. We employ multi-layered and credible force protection measures.” While specifics were not disclosed for security reasons, she assured Parliament that these threats are being actively addressed.
Eagle pushed on the critical importance of NATO integration to the UK’s defence posture, citing initiatives like DIAMOND, which aims to enhance air defence interoperability across Europe. “It is all very well for us all to procure different missiles, but if we do not work together, one ends up with holes and gaps. There is a good argument for ensuring that we can join up whatever systems there are to boost overall defence for Europe. That is what DIAMOND seeks to do,” she explained.
Looking ahead, Eagle said the forthcoming Strategic Defence Review will focus heavily on preparedness against air and missile threats, including low-cost drones and strategic long-range weapons.
She highlighted the government’s leadership in NATO initiatives, such as the multinational procurement programme to support Ukraine, and stressed the need to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry. She also pointed to recent agreements with Germany and France, such as the Trinity House agreement, as crucial steps in fostering stronger bilateral defence cooperation.
“We have to continue to look at how the UK can meet her own NATO commitments, provide defence and deterrence, and protect the UK homeland,” Eagle said.
Eagle concluded by reaffirming the government’s commitment to boosting industrial capacity and delivering a comprehensive defence strategy. “We are committed to ensuring that we spend wisely on the right capabilities, working with our allies to build a peaceful and stable Euro-Atlantic area. This is a certainty in our strategic way forward,” she stated.
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!
This is something that should have already been sorted the fact that it isnt its embarrassing.
An other SDR that says you can have one or the other and forget that nice to have capability.
Yep. I can see it coming. Our military is expeditionary.
I fear entire areas cut for the sake of home defence, leaving the UK stronger defensively but weaker overall.
Unfortunately, I agree with you Daniele,
What do you think will be on the chopping block?
This was always going to be the case with a resurgent Russia. We have few commitments outside of Europe though to defend now and it looks like we are going to have even less once the Donald surrenders to Russia and hands over Taiwan.
I’m pretty happy for us to boost missile and air defences along with nuclear weapon and satellites and other strategic assets currently provided by the US. If that was we can deploy one less bridge then so be it, Europe has no lack of brigades.
This all sounds positive, but as ever, the devil will be in the details when the defence review is published.
It is stating the obvious, to the UKDJ readership at least that the UK needs to rapidly invest in AD capabilities at all levels. I am hoping to see an increase in RA Regt’s in an AD role (new units and not re-roled ones) as what we have is insufficient.
12 and 16 Regt’s RA are co-located at Thorney Island. Any additional capability should be based across locations all the way up the country into Scotland. Yes, co-location for training and maintenance may have made sense a few years ago, but not now. Having most of your AD assets and stored in warehouses and trained personnel accommodated in one place is a vulnerability that we can now do without. It would be far too tempting a target for a submarine launched missile strike or even an SF raid.
In addition to extra any regular units:
1. Sufficient Army Reserve RA Regt’s should be re-equipped and trained to the same standard.
2. All major units should have an organic SHORAD Plt/Trp etc. I’m not just talking about Inf and Cav Units, but also the RE, RLC, REME, R Sigs and non-AD RA Regt’s too. Ukraine has shown us that the huge evolution in UAS and indiscriminate use of missiles, glide bombs and cluster munitions means that everywhere is vulnerable, not just the FLOT.
3. The same with anti-UAS systems, though from what I’ve seen on UKDJ and other sites, this appears to be happening already.
4. Restore the RAF Regt SHORAD Sqn’s. Airfields are a clear vulnerability and bringing back this ability is a no-brainer to me as it will remove the task from an overstretched RA. I would hope that it is something that CAS is lobbying hard for.
5. Another one that seems to be in the process of being addressed (I am ready to be corrected by more read in contributors) is RN at sea strategic AD. T45 can do it (though can’t be everywhere at once) and T26 appears to be going to be ‘fitted with’ as well.
I will finish by saying that everything remains up in the air until the Defence Review is published and the Treasury have their say as well….
Naval bases and major radar facilities should also have some deployable protection and especially counter drone. Maybe they do/don’t, i don’t know. Their airspaces should be being monitored already! Undersea approaches to ports, sub bases, seaways, should also be being monitored out to a certain deemed safe radius.
Government minister discovers facts known to the general public since the 1980’s.
Too true – certainly known to anyone who has thought about it for 5 mins or more!
In many ways, Putin’s direct threat to the UK opens up the debate about the lack of missile defence. It appears we don’t have one, which is very worrying considering a strike from a rogue state and Russia can’t be ignored.
The only missiles in range of the UK are ICBM’s and no country on earth has any real defence against ICBM’s
This is the reason we don’t have missile defence in the UK but it’s wrong to say we don’t have missile defence. We do it’s just based in Romania which up until recently was the best place to put it.
Not so. The Russian enclave of Kaliningrad is about 800 miles from London. It can launch both the “new” IRBM as well as a number of ground launched cruise missiles at us. from Kaliningrad the cruise missiles, such as the SSC8, which has a range of around 1500 miles. Which means all of the UK would be targetable!
“Eagle concluded by reaffirming the government’s commitment to boosting industrial capacity” This is a big concern I have, yes we can purchase home grown systems but they must be competitively priced otherwise you can chuck as much as you want into the defence budget and over priced non competitive home grown solution will consume it and come back asking for more. They really need to throw the challenge to industry and say you must create internationally competitive products, that way we know we’re paying the right amount and we also have export potential. I remain unconvince the government will be able to get a handle on this, creating a competitive business environment doesn’t look to be a strong point for them atm.
But the counter argument is that ATM home grown solutions are actually very competitive.
I agree that blank cheques based around cost+ are a terrible way to go as it just turns into the hospital job where resources are parked when they are not needed elsewhere!
ATM what is needed is more production capacity for what we already have like 155mm shells and various flavours of Sea Ceptor or T31 and T26 and pressing on wit T83 with some dispatch. Thing is that if anything brews up it will be well before T83 is a real floating thing.
Things are now very different from when you designed a whole ship around a weapons system or more importantly the CMS such as ADAWS and its various bits such as radars. That said when you go high end the function of the ship is still very important to determine hull shape and propulsion systems. Look at T45 it is the way it is to have the high radar mast and a big heavy SAMPSON on the top of it.
Richard Dearlove, former head of MI6 says we are in a state of actual war with Russia. Richard Moore, current head of MI6 says threats facing Europe could hardly be more serious, and the west faces reckoning with new generation of Islamist radicalisation.
I’m sure Sir Keir is on the case 😀
I worry about the defence of the homeland. I worry more about the enemy within. We seem very adept at welcoming them weekly.
I have a question I am not in the know. Why can’t we just have more sky sabre? Are these not amazing bits of kit?
Surely it was obvious since the open hours of Gulf War 1 since we saw those first images of TLAM leaving their silos aboard USN ships that the UK was defenceless?
I reckon there are 200 key sites that need defending from power stations to refineries to certain nodes on the gas network.
The Russian Federation doesn’t need to target central London with nuke to destroy us.
If only we had airborne early warning aircraft and the world best high speed interception aircraft armed with the worlds best air to air missile we could shoot down the Russian cruise missiles.
Failing that if we had our own nuclear submarines, MPA, helicopters and towed array sonars backed up by some sort of ocean wide sensors system we could track down those Russian submarines and stop them firing missiles at us.
🤔
We don’t have AWACS at the moment, unfortunately.
Apart from that, completely agree.
The issue at present is lone wolf stuff, drone strikes and state sponsored terror attacks aimed at key sites and civil infrastructure.
That calls for a wide area, but not necessarily very high performance, system for knocking down large numbers of cheap weapons.
Anything more is a NATO issue or very likely to become one. A bomber raid is going to be a massive failure for Russia with no jets getting back home and ideally any submarine would be tracked nearby and hunted down immediately upon firing.
If we can’t do THAT, that is where the real issue lies.
That is the case but we now have to be aware that Russian now has a line of conventional IRBMs, I no longer has to risk its SSNs or strike aircraft in the Norwegian Sea, it can strike core assets with conventionally armed MIRVs that’s a problem.
We do via NATO though and we also have CROWSNEST.
Most important comment is that the minister is confirming that the government will lay out a path to reaching 2.5% of GDP on defence in the new year. This means for the first time in my life time the MOD will actually be faced with a long term increase in its budget.
Is 2.5% going to cut it ? To do this probably not like I’ve said before going have make an increased in manpower for all three services if wanting more Missiles for GBAD and drones, or are going to make more cuts to pay for what we need and have another capability gap ? .HMG need to aim for 3% GDP at least . Sorry for playing same old record guys 🙄
No other major players in NATO is aiming at 3% of GDP on defence including the USA that’s set to drop to 2.7%. I see no reason why the UK should aim at 3% given we have the most secure position in NATO.
Better that we aim for 2.5% and get everyone else to match us tile we did with 2% rather than us get out the credit card to start paying to defend Germany and the EU.
Germany and the EU are more than capable of paying for their own defence.
I rather have lower taxes, better infrastructure and better health care.
I see no need or threat environment for us to spend 3% of GDP on defence.
Does that mean we’ll get Meteor onto UK F35s any quicker?