Armed Forces Minister Luke Pollard has reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to bolstering NATO’s integrated air and missile defence capabilities, addressing the evolving nature of modern threats.
Speaking in a Commons debate on air defence, Pollard outlined the UK’s proactive approach to safeguarding both the homeland and NATO allies, with a focus on adapting to lessons learned from the Ukraine conflict.
“The United Kingdom’s commitment to NATO is not just in securing a northern and western flank and dealing with the north Atlantic and the high north; we also have responsibilities to our NATO allies on the eastern and southern flanks,” the Minister stated.
He stressed that the definitions of “close” and “deep” threats have fundamentally changed due to the Ukraine war, necessitating a rethink of strategies and capabilities. “The distances have increased enormously, and that means we have to re-imagine and re-define the strategies and capabilities we need to be able to operate in those environments,” he explained.
Strengthening NATO Integration
The Minister highlighted several key UK initiatives aimed at enhancing NATO’s air defence network, including the DIAMOND programme—“delivering integrated air and missile operational networked defences”—which is set to improve air defence integration across Europe. “We are leading the way with initiatives like DIAMOND, which will strengthen NATO’s air and missile protection,” he said.
He also pointed to deeper bilateral defence collaborations, such as the “landmark Trinity House agreement” with Germany, which aims to turbocharge projects across air, land, and sea. Additionally, the UK has partnered with France on the European Long-Range Strike Approach (ELSA) initiative, demonstrating a commitment to unified European air defence.
Operational Successes
Also highlighted was the UK’s forward deployments in support of NATO, including the Sky Sabre system in Poland under Operation Stifftail. “That mission has been a success,” he said, thanking the Royal Artillery for their contributions. The Sky Sabre system has since been returned to the UK for reconstitution, while its counterpart in the Falklands continues to provide critical air defence for the islands.
Pollard underscored the effectiveness of the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers, which demonstrated their capability by shooting down drones in recent operations in the Red Sea. He also praised the RAF’s quick reaction Typhoon aircraft, which are on alert 24/7 and play a key role in protecting UK airspace.
“Our radar at Fylingdales provides continuous early warning against ballistic missiles, and the Royal Navy has proven its ability to counter threats, including drones similar to those used by Russia against Ukraine,” Pollard noted.
Strategic Defence Review
Acknowledging Dr Andrew Murrison’s concerns about air defence gaps, Pollard said that the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) will address these issues comprehensively. “Enhancing our capabilities to meet threats is one of the core challenges of the SDR,” he remarked.
The review, led by Lord Robertson, Fiona Hill, and Richard Barrons, will also align defence spending with these priorities. “The time on the path to get to 2.5% of GDP being spent on defence will also be published in the spring,” the Minister confirmed.
Pollard stressed the importance of interoperability within NATO, adding, “Any increased defence spending must deter aggression, defeat it, and increase our deployability and lethality as we fight together with our allies.”
Reflecting on the complexity of modern threats, Pollard warned that “adversaries must be in no doubt that the UK possesses formidable capabilities… along with the will and the intent to protect the UK and our allies.” He also pointed to emerging technologies like directed energy weapons, such as the UK’s DragonFire system, as a potential game-changer in countering drones and missiles.
A Cross-Party Defence Policy
Pollard concluded by expressing hope that the SDR would receive cross-party support. “Let me be absolutely clear that I look forward to seeing the strategic defence review published and having it as not only Labour’s defence policy, but supported on a cross-party basis as Britain’s defence policy, to secure our nation, our values, and our allies in more uncertain times.”
The Minister’s remarks reflect a clear intention to position the UK as a leader in NATO’s collective defence while addressing critical gaps in air and missile defence. As Pollard said, “Protecting Britain and our allies from attacks becomes ever more complex and challenging, but we are committed to meeting that challenge head-on.”
Of course a government minister has to say lots of nice things but the reality is the UK has capability gaps all over the place; including air defence. I was surprised and disappointed the previous government didn’t order more Sky Sabre systems after the Ukrainian invasion considering there was / is a hot production line.
We can’t even adequately defend our own airspace!
Well. We can, and we do.
Please explain more. 4 x EF on QRA occasionally intercepting 1 or 2 aircraft is not a peer conflict defence capability capable of dealing with multiple concurrent incoming cruise and ballistic missiles heading to Faslane, Portsmouth etc.
Well said. And let’s face it, QRA is only really there to prevent mr&mrs moneybags from having to delay their holiday plans due to unexpected visitors. Doesn’t have any real defence value. Just a bit of hazard shepherding.
“Doesn’t have any real defence value”
Really? RAF pilots and the entire QRA system, from the AC&C Force at the RPs and RHs, to pilots, to the NADOC, to ministers, often practice defending the nation from rogue aircraft in a 9/11 scenario.
I’d counter that actually that has plenty of defence value.
I think the truth always lies somewhere in between.
Robert is correct, we can, and do, adequately defend the UK ADR, and have done for decades right back to the Cold War.
The system of RPs, RRHs, CRCs, data links, and the QRA system is tried and tested. It works. What it does NOT do is provide mass.
So I ask you:
Who does have that capability? Which NATO nations beyond the USA have dozens and dozens of Fast Jets sitting at their airfields, be it on QRA or not, ready to go?
The ASCS is comprehensive. But, as always, it is comprehensive to be able know what is inbound! Being comprehensive enough to deal with every threat is another matter.
By comparison, Ukraine is festooned with GBAD systems of all kinds, are they able to deal with all multiple threats?
How much has it cost to assemble the array of systems that provide this defence?
Who pays for similar for the UK, and is it actually needed given our geographic location?
What gets cut to pay for such a network for the UK?
To me. DI assessed the threat over decades and advised ministers such was not needed. And I agreed with that posture. Our armed forces are by nature expeditionary.
Now, given Russia’s reliance on missiles and cyber, I agree that some expansion is needed. There are a few dozen KPs in this country that would cripple UK defence if negated. Hitting them with accuracy is another matter. But yes, they need GBAD.
I agree with that.
Although this crop of defence statements belong on a defence parody channel….
Where are these cruise and ballistic missiles coming from? We don’t base our defence forces on non realistic scenarios for hypothetical or imagined threats?
Another Russian troll? at no point has the UK ever been unable to defend its own air space.
It’s all well and good having Allies but most of them seem to have a GBAD in place .Like the UK government hand money out to basically anybody ,foreign aid etc .Time to look after our own 🚀 it’s not a get round to it ,it’s a must 🙄 🇬🇧
Assume serious consideration is underway to rapid maturing of Gravehawk systems for relatively mobile and lower cost but effective battlefield AA Capabilty out to @ 18km with ASSRAM and further with CAMM-ER/MR in support of Army and RM . Also assume Gravehawk could be networked with Sky Sabre if that is also in theatre.. a handful of Gravehawk systems can cover a significant geographical area.
“Also highlighted was the UK’s forward deployments in support of NATO, including the Sky Sabre system in Poland under Operation Stifftail. “That mission has been a success,” he said, thanking the Royal Artillery for their contributions.”
One Fire Group. Half a Battery. Hardly ground breaking. And as repeated countless times, this asset defends the Field Army, not a home GBAD asset.
““Our radar at Fylingdales provides continuous early warning against ballistic missiles, and the Royal Navy has proven its ability to counter threats”
Scraping the barrel here. I think you’ll find the radar is American, it is not “ours.”
We crew it, the Americans paid for it.
I may be wrong, and harsh here, but such is my lack of faith in ANYTHING HMG ministers say I doubt he even knows where Fylingdales is, other than somewhere “Ooop North” so I can see, when being so desperate to Grandstand, ministers will grasp anything that moves as “ours.”
Overall, yes, the UK ASCS is comprehensive, and effective. It does not have any GBAD assets though, so he can hardly grandstand about leading the way when other NATO nations have such assets.
Yes but other NATO members can come up with program names and acronyms like the MOD. That’s our real strength, private school educated under achievers dominating an officer core built around interesting sounding programs names all designed to make it look like somethings happening while the reality is nothing is going on what so ever.
I’m willing to bet the Russian are already bricking it over project DIAMOND here which sounds like something from a James Bond movie involving death days but in reality is probably little more than a few phone numbers on a spreadsheet for different NATO air defence centres.
No freeking laser beams required 😀
boutique
Interesting, how does that work when it was declared just recently that Britain is defenseless when it comes to ICBM’s? The statement said Britain has no air defense of any kind. Whilst Israel has three different systems we have none! So how might Britain help protect Europe?
We need to have indigenous Homeland defence, not just a handful of systems owned by the army. We need more UK Sky Sabre units ideally with CAMMS MR. We then need to buy land based ASTER 30 block 1/1NT and some block 2 when available. Also at least 5 E7 AWACS planes.
Since Bloodhound 2 SAM was retired we have had no proper homeland SAM defence. This is in contrast to our European pers like Italy, France, Spain and Germany who ALL have SAM systems to defend their countries.
Our leadership has been lax and failed to keep our defences up to date.
A lot of disingenuous wuffle from the Minister.
We have one element of air defence that works, QRA. That is essential to deal with.peacetime air threats and intercept suspicious civil and military aircraft entering UK airspace. We have a gap in the Western Approaches.due to flight times from Lossiemoith and Coningsby, really need to have a QRA flight in Valley or Belfast or somewhere else central West Coast.
Air defence fighters are at their lowest number ever. We have not much over half the number France and Germany have, and fewer than Italy or Spain.. We have nothing to forward base for NATO, we have well below the minimum number just to provide token defence of the UK homeland. We badly need an additional buy of Tranche 4 Typhoons to replace the 25 Tranche 1 ones being prematurely withdrawn to save.money.
Our defence against ballistic and cruise missiles is non-existent. The handful of Sky Sabres and Starstreaks are not enough to.provide local and low-level air defence of our warfighting division. The T45s will be at sea defending the fleet, other than a couple in dry dock or alongside. There is nothing at all to defend the UK base and its range of high-value.civil and military targets..
What is needed is a three-part air defence system in the UK, same as Israel, Poland etc. A high-level Arrow 3 type missile to take out ICBMs and cruise missile, Sky Sabre as local area defence and a gun/missile vehicle for defence against lower level drones, missile and helicopters. A lot of our allies are already constructing such a system. We haven’t even made a start, we just waffle on about British leadership, which is a joke ref GBAD, and future NATO co-operation, when we don’t have anything to bring to the table.
What is needed is some early, urgent action to get some GBAD underway, pronto, not more misleading, meaningless waffle from Minister and MOD.