The Ministry of Defence is investing £240 million in Project PRESAGIUM, an enhanced counter-drone system intended to detect and defeat emerging drone threats, alongside a further £470 million to improve the security of military sites in the United Kingdom.
Louise Sandher-Jones, Parliamentary Under-Secretary and Minister for the Armed Forces, was responding to Stuart Anderson, the Conservative MP for South Shropshire, who had asked what steps have been taken to provide additional capabilities for the protection of bases and critical national infrastructure in crisis and in conflict.
She said the Strategic Defence Review committed the department to strengthening that protection, and that “Defence is investing an additional £470 million to improve the security of military sites in the UK”, work she described as supporting broader home defence planning to ensure the resilience of the country’s most important infrastructure.
On the counter-drone element specifically, she said: “Defence is investing £240 million in Project PRESAGIUM, an enhanced counter-drone system, providing effective detection and defeat of emerging drone threats.”
Alongside it, the department is growing and equipping the Reserves to support homeland defence tasks and enhancing capabilities to protect critical underwater infrastructure, with integrated air and missile defence capabilities to be prioritised against the assessed threat as part of the future Integrated Force.
The approach described rests on working out which infrastructure would matter most in a conflict before deciding what to defend. By contributing defence data to the Cabinet Office’s critical national infrastructure knowledge base, the minister said, the department is fulfilling commitments in the Resilience Action Plan and improving understanding of “the infrastructure, dependencies and vulnerabilities that would be most critical in a conflict scenario”.
That analysis is informing home defence planning by aligning defence resources against the most important infrastructure across a spectrum running from hybrid activity through to conventional conflict, and will also help identify what defence could contribute to protecting other priority infrastructure essential to the functioning of the country.
Britain has invested in counter-drone capability at bases before, including the deployment of systems at RAF Lakenheath and RAF Mildenhall, and the Royal Air Force Regiment holds responsibility for ground-based air defence of airfields.
Defence Secretary Wes Streeting was asked in the Commons this week what is being done to secure British manufacturing facilities, following a case in which a man was charged with offering to sabotage drone factories, and said he would not comment on operational details while confirming that threats to British assets are taken seriously.
All sounds good, and it seems to be progress.
But I’d be interested in the nitty gritty details of how many assets and who will operate them with no manpower uplift, or what is lost to divert posts.
And I’d also beware of “double hatting ” as well as HMG include Field Army assets in the list which will be deployed elsewhere in war. As if they’re not, the Field Army is bare. They cannot be in two places at once. I say that as HMG have been seen to do this previously, regards announcements for GBAD for “Homeland Defence” which included assets not bought for that task
There is virtually none beyond the ORCUS, Rapid Sentry, and Giraffe systems of 2 CAUS Wing. With the new Skyhammer Drones, just how many of those were bought? It’s never been revealed.
“Growing and equipping the Reserves.” Where? With what? How? Where are the details?
Hard to judge, I remain sceptical at the reality behind the words, sorry.
Well other than the cost. Ukraine is massive producing counter drones drones at a very cost efficient approach. Why can’t we buy that tech and utilise it.
Too simple. It would never occur to the MOD.
I’d agree with that. Cost effective.
Does it support the UK MIC, though? HMG main priority. My own priority would be the right kit in the right amounts for HM forces, the two don’t mix well.
Hello Mate,
Hope you are well.
Double hatting is a serious game of self delusion by the politicians, but I also think that the military are not exactly doing themselves any favours. There seems to be a complete institutional block on being able to recruit enough people to be able to maintain the current force levels and yet I saw a report recently that the Army turned down more than 30,000 people on medical grounds.
Whilst I am well aware that the nation has put on rather more weight than is good for us over the last 2 or 3 decades and is no where near as fit as we should be I get the sense that the military are clinging to entry fitness standards from decades ago. These standards simply do not match realty and they need to accept that if they are to recruit enough people to defend the country they need to adapt. After all, isn’t adaptability one of the key capabilities of our military that we are so proud of. Over all everything I have read recently points to a situation where there is no shortage of volunteers, rather it seems there may well be a distinct lack of realism towards recruitment and training with in our armed forces. There is also a tendency to blame the ‘yuff’ of today. Well whose fault is it that they turned out the way they are..? Ours. Our generation created the world they were borne into after all. So we own it to them to help get them fit and trained to able to defend the country!
I am reminded of a story a very dear friend of mine told me about one of his relatives in WW1. This chap volunteered repeatedly but was turned down on the ground that is glasses were the thinkness of milk bottle bottoms and he was still as blind as a bat! However, by 1917 the army was so short of troops they took in on anyway, taught him to carry shells from the ready to use stack to the gun and hand it to the loader. It was about all he could do. Then the Germans launched the 1918 spring offensive and he found himself in the frontline as everyone else had buggered off. A passing sergeant gave him a Lee Enfield and told him to shoot at the Germans when they cam into view. He saw some vague grey shapes coming down the hill in front of him figured they were German so fired at them from behind a wall until the magazine was empty. As no one had ever bothered to showed him how to use a Leed Enfield he didn’t know how to reload. So the rifle went over the wall and he legged it after the rest of the army..!
Reason I recount this story is not to suggest that the army start recruiting half blind soldiers, that would be daft, rather to point out that the standards really are flexible and can be very flexible when our backs are against the wall. Also bravery has nothing to do with physical fitness as I think the actions of the chap I describe are truly courageous under the circumstances.
I think we need to modify our recruitment and training to make up for the loss of Physical Education and school playing fields or we will never be able to build up our military to the level we need. Double Hatting is not the answer and giving the politicians the excuse that it is not possible to recruit enough people in the modern era is a foolish form self defeatism.
Now I’ll go and put me tin hat..! 🙂
Cheers CR
Mmm isn’t there a country with combat proven drone defence systems capable of rapid upgrades when/if needed already in partnership with British companies? Ignore that and spend £m,s reinventing the wheel sounds like a plan👍
MIC. Money. Jobs.
Who cares about the military?