During a parliamentary session, Helen Maguire, Liberal Democrat MP for Epsom and Ewell, raised concerns over the UK’s preparedness to address certain challenges, including gaps in anti-ballistic-missile systems and threats to critical infrastructure.

Maguire highlighted vulnerabilities in the UK’s defences, stating, “We face serious national defence vulnerabilities, with no land-based anti-ballistic-missile systems to protect critical infrastructure, military bases or population centres. Recent suspected sabotage of undersea cables in the Baltics highlights the hybrid threats for which we must also prepare.”

She pressed the Ministry of Defence (MOD) on its actions to address these issues, asking, “What steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to address the UK’s deficiencies in anti-ballistic-missile defences, and how are we preparing for potential hybrid attacks on our critical infrastructure?”

MPs warn of ‘urgent gaps’ in British air and missile defence

Responding, Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard pushed the importance of the ongoing Strategic Defence Review (SDR). “It is important that the strategic defence review is able to report its recommendations,” Pollard said, adding that the review will address capability gaps.

The Minister also criticised the state of the armed forces inherited by the current government, pointing to “capability gaps, falling morale and a recruitment and personnel crisis.”

He assured Parliament that the government is committed to defence, stating, “This Government back defence and will continue to do so, ensuring that those capability gaps are filled.”

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

52 COMMENTS

  1. How can there be doubt as to the readiness of something that doesn’t exist? We’ve never had defence against ICBMs or IRBMs, and we’ve a dearth of AAW destroyers that might be able to deal with SRBMs if tasked to do so, which they aren’t. What we have is deterrence, not defence.

    • Jon agree, we are not stepping up to wishfully defending UK mainland against incoming missiles. Ivan or who ever has to understand that there would be consequences attacking a NATO country.

  2. Doubt, what doubt. The U.K. readiness against missile ( Ballastic cruise hypersonic or drone attack is not just inadequate, it is non existant.
    There is absolutely no doubt, we would be FUBAR!!

  4. SDR recommendations could indeed prove to be interesting. If a Liberal Democrat MP broaches the GBAD issue, could a sea change in the viewpoint of political class re defence have begun? 🤔

    • Very good point mate, I’d have had defence, REAL fldefence, as the last of their interests beyond housing and T&C.

    • I suspect that it is unlikely but it is a promising development. I saw someone try and simulate a large ALCM attack by Russia on the UK and even with the extremely limited resources we do have they made a pretty decent fist of fighting off the first wave with 24 Typhoons and a single Type-45 parked off the North East coast of England. They also simulated using half our sky sabre batteries.
      The end result wasn’t a total success but they did a surprisingly good job of dealing with the conventional attack although one or two places wouldn’t agree after they got leveled.
      What was clear however is that although we do have some GBAD we don’t have anywhere near enough and in a war of attrition like Ukraine is facing we would eventually take a lot of damage unless things are drastically improved. Any spare PAC-3 batteries we can have cheap?

      • Iain,
        Have posted previously on multiple occasions that the RAF should have approached USAF during the Biden administration for deployment of PAC-3 batteries to protect USAF assets in the UK (and contiguous areas). Absolutely no clue re receptivity of next administration to this plan. One could hope for an enlightened perspective. 🤞

      • Didn’t that SIM assume all of our Typhoons in the UK were ready to take off at a few minutes’ notice or had been forewarned?
        Also that there was a Sky Sabre battery positioned in the centre of London.

      • We were pre warned, then, and the Field Army was in barracks.
        As Sky Sabre Batteries are not meant for UK Defence but for 3 Division when it’s in the field.
        Not the best scenario for a surprise submarine launched attack, itself unlikely.

      • I saw that, in reality it was totally unrealistic. Even if the US fighters based here supported the RAF there is no way that many aircraft could be scrambled with no notice. We would need to be on a full war alert with all aircraft armed and pilots on alert. A surprise attack would see us FUBAR’d.

    • I can see missile defence being the big winner from the defence review. I’m guessing the Lockheed Martin BMD radar will be cut and the government will look for a quick off the shelf purchase of either Arrow 3 or THAAD. It would have been if we could go down the SAMP/T route but block 1 NT is still years away and I can’t see the government wanting to wait.

      Realistically this is a pretty easy gap to solve just requiring the acquisition for a few billion of an existing system.

      • Is this new Lockheed BMD radar similar to what’s at Fylingdales? Will it be at a different site? Good for additional surveillance and as a backup. Just need some hard kill interceptors and a GBAD network to plug into it.

      • Is this new Lockheed BMD radar similar to what’s at Fylingdales? Will it be at a different site? Good for additional surveillance and as a backup. Just need some hard kill interceptors and a GBAD network to plug into it.

  5. Is there any actual update on GBAD available to the general public or is it all happening (or not) behind closed doors? What’s happening with expanding CAMM/Sky Sabre and Shorad and is anybody looking at SAMP/T or Patriot for the UK? Is doing nothing a sensible option? Pooled inventories, truck, rail, barge based, even 2-3 upgraded AAW T31s, it doesn’t all have to just be all on the T45s.

      • Aren’t they already doing a “capability insertion” into the T31s shich must also cover AAW to some degree? New and new-old missiles are going into the mk41s anyway and it can’t be too big a leap to get CAMM/ER/MR happening? Things can always be improved on down the track or get an additional 2-3 more AAW enhanced T31s, maybe at a spec like the Polish A140s?

        Priorities obviously to upgrading the T45s, and getting thevT26/T31s into service.

    • Acquisition of Patriots, Arrow 3, is happening under the European Sky Shield programme. What is t apparent however, is how much the U.K. is actually contributing to this. Germany is the lead nation on the programme, and has been signing contracts for billions, but further details are very scant…

    • SAMP/T and Patriot are now too limited for the emerging threat. It’s Arrow 3, THAAD or SM3. My money is on Arrow 3 as part of the German Sky Shield initiative although it won’t work so well without either Arrow 2 or Patriot. Two batteries for the UK north and South and One for Cyprus with one available for deployment with a Division should be enough. That’s about £3 billion.

      SM3 also interesting as it would incorporate with the Lockheed Martin BMD radar we were suppose to be buying but if it’s a fixed AEGIS ashore sight it may be too expensive and inflexible.

      • Are the Aster/ SAMP/T and Patriot that limited that it couldn’t be a good interim purchase in line with a lot of our European allies? Time is a bit of a luxury and shared pooling of missiles and systems has its benefits. Plus whatever is landbased is seabased and vice versa.
        If Mk41s were put on the T45s there might have be an option for SM3/6 mix there with the Aster’s plus CAMM. The T83s are still faraway.

        • unfortunately production for these extremely complicated missiles is limited. 550 a year currently globally- going up to 650 in 2027 for pac 3… but as we’ve seen they get used up quickly and they are extremely expensive and have a lot of customers. the US navy is also wanting PAC 3 for their mk 41s because they found that against certain hypersonics at certain phases of flight it fills a niche that none of the SM missiles can do- and they can be quad packed. no doubt they were impressed with its use in ukraine against khinzal and cruise missiles. so the US is wanting to replenish stockpiles used in ukraine/middle east and have a very large stockpile for the pacific. they’re also still giving missiles to ukraine and a large number are due to be delivered to taiwan. so i dont think the UK would be able to get any for a while if at all.

          i cant find exact numbers for THAAD except 8 per month in 2022- this has no doubt gone up though. but 96 missiles a year is only enough to fit out 2 batteries (with no reloads).

          SM-3 numbers are again hard to find but looks like total of all variants is only 71 a year (but going up) – however the SM-3 block IIA top of the line model only 12 are made a year it looks like- but that variant is probably overkill as it even has anti ICBM capability (>2500km range, >mach 12). the block 1B variant would probably be more suited for the UK but again not enough and the USN want more- estimated ~500 in inventory. (keep in mind they have 74 destroyers and 3 aegis ashore sites in poland, romania and guam to fit out) and japan and south korea uses these as well.

          SM-6 looks to be 125 a year, going to 300 by 2028. again, keep in mind how many ships the USN has and this is not a lot of missiles.

          as for the aster im not sure on production numbers and also not sure what its capabilities actually are against ballistic missiles or which type- i know that capability was being added.

    • If we ever get into s period of rel tension with Russia or China we will need every T45 we have and possibly more to defend the carriers and we cannot afford to rely of a T45s to help defend the target rich UK mainland . There are perfectlty capable GBAD systems available today such as Patriot and Thaad and Iron Dome and there is no urgent need for a study, and new requirements and invention of a new system which Labour will jump at because it means we won’t need that much upfront budget and things will be natrually delayed whilst yet another study is completed. Our hollowed out defences need much more mass today to act as real deterrent such as more E7s, Typhoons and F35s there is no need to study these requirements. But I can guess the outcome of the current defence review will go after blaming the Conservtives for their 14 years etc etc forgetting Blair and Brown contribution by taking the Peace dividend and it will be to commision another study to decide what we really need

  6. I am not sure the radar is good enough on the T31.

    We need some significant land based investments in middle and drone defence to defend key infrastructure, military bases and population centres. For instance ever nuclear power station should have protection, they are begging to be attacked and almost sitting ducks.

    Only 4 land based landsaber systems is a joke should be 30 plus, every major base should have one in the uk and worldwide, plus critical infrastructure.

    • they have a few permanently stationed in spain that are part of their european missile shield. they also have aegis ashore sites in poland and romania that could intercept stuff launched from inside russia…

  9. Historical recall. 1945 and The Blitz was thought to be over. Then the simple V1 caused thousands of deaths. Politicians will not spend money on defence of the UK mainland. They are blind to the facts and threats. There are no votes in defence.

  11. Same old circular conversation:

    JOE PUBLIC/MPs : “Oops we don’t have enough Ships /Tanks/Planes / Missile defences /personnel”
    MOD/TREASURY: “Ah there’s not enough money for any of that right now”
    MIL SUPPLIERS: “It will take a decade to build all that if you give us the money”
    GOVERNMENT: “We are currently addressing the problem” (cue tumbleweed rolling)

  12. We should look at the Iranian Ballistic attacks on Israel as the lesson here.

    In each attack, Iran fired around 200 Ballistic missiles (plus cruise missiles and drones in the first attack).
    Israel was well prepared with its defences, they did not run out of missiles.
    It is thought that Iran had around 3000 ballistic missiles of various types in stock before the attacks. So the attacks could have been much more intense than they were.

    Arrow 3 has proved itself and the UK should seriously think about acquiring this system (If Israel is willing to sell us some, or let us build it locally).

    ATM there seems to be some complacency that our 6 T45s are good enough for ABM but currently only 2 are active.
    Secondly, the saturation attacks as we have seen in the Iran/Israel scenario suggests that a land-based solution is a better option for defending critical infrastructure.

    • Comparing the threat to Israel from any Missile Attack to the UK is pretty pointless IMHO,Israel is a relatively small Country with its main adversaries ( that are likely to pose an existential threat ) located in obvious locations (North, East and South) .The UK is surrounded by vast expanses of Sea and Friendly Countries.Some Missiles have penetrated through the various defensive layers that Israel fields ,no Country could absolutely guarantee 100% that nothing would get through.To get to the level of protection of Israel would be unaffordable for us,the best we can hope for is point Defence of Critical points only.

      • Not pointless at all, the ballistic missiles that threaten the UK are very similar tech to that which Iran has.

        The minimum distance between Iran and Israel is about 1000 miles (1600Km) so the missiles are not being fired from close proximity,
        and they had to fly over other countries air space too … so what’s the difference?

        Also, Russia’s missiles can be launched from Submarines and aircraft so the UK being surrounded by sea makes no difference to the argument.

      • Exactly it’s moronic in to compare the UK to Israel or Ukraine.

        Both of those countries have rivals on their doorstep. In Ukraine’s case they are in the kitchen.

        The UK is surrounded by water and allies but yes we need to spend billions on ground based missiles which will never be used. Will become obsolete and then we’ll decommission them never having fired a shot and bedroom generals (on this site and in parliament) will wonder why we don’t have the newest ships, planes or equipment service personnel need.

        BECAUSE WE WASTED MONEY ON A USELESS IRON DOME WITHOUT AN IMMEDIATE RISK. Russia is proving that it cannot do a thing against Western tech that has been DONATED. It wouldn’t stand a conventional chance against all of NATO.

        And in a nuclear conflict it doesn’t matter does it because then we’re all dead

        • Missiles for GBAD should be interchageable and usable on naval platforms. Shared inventories, no need to go too nuts on purchases. What might go into T83 could be used on land as are the T45s CAMM and Aster.

  13. Doubt? What doubt? After 60 years of continual hacking back we couldn’t defend ourselves against a rogue archer from Mongolia…. We have nothing left and no industry to help replenish any thing either. It is a deliberate civil service strategy to render the UK so weak any other state in the world can invade us successfully, especially their mates in Russia. More over the civil service, BBC and teachers have continually poured in to the heads of the young that we are such a bunch of bastards we deserve it. Until people vote for a government that will expel the entire civil service we will not see recovery or anything good.it wasn’t this government that decided to stop pensioner winter fuel, it wasn’t a government that advised to kill tsr2, it wasn’t even a government that decided we should do away with co2 it was a civil service riddled with people paid for by Russia and China. But in answer we have no defence we don’t even have a deterrent because we have tried to fire nuclear missiles twice in 15 years and both times they failed.

  14. What is the scenario that requires a land based anti-missile shield for the UK, that wouldn’t be dealt with by our nuclear deterrence?

    Sea based anti missile and drone capability definitely needs upgrading and expanding but wasting money by developing an Iron Dome over the UK as a whole would be senseless and risk degrading military capability in areas that we actually need.

  15. Good question. If a greater conflict in Europe ever broke out, nuclear deterrence or not, you can assume that exposed areas and weaknesses will be targeted first further limiting one’s ability to fight back. I think Davey mentioned in another post that the missiles in Kaliningrad alone are currently able to hit the UK let alone what could be sub launched. To have some level of GBAD network in place where missiles systems could be added on and into if when required seems a sensible backstop and just needs beefing up? Aren’t ship based and satellite systems already linked into an existing landbased network? Sorry for my total lack of technical knowledge here.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here