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.
Has it ever been announced just how many launcher vehicles are being brought for sky saber? Same question for number of radar and command vehicles.
No.
Though one can make an educated guess based on the 16RA set up, which I’ve outlined here before.
I don’t see many reports of opposition MP’s saying how few of this that and the other we have. Obviously the Tory’s aren’t going to say that as they’ve just completed 16 years in charge, but did Labour call it out? Or do opposition MPs not make statements to avoid enemies knowing something they can just find out anyway, or to not scare the wider ignorant public?
It’s polictics. Also we have a media that is insanely biased resulting in most voters only ever reading about positives of their chosen party and negatives of the rest.
We can’t even adequately defend our own airspace!
Well. We can, and we do.
Against one or two planes maybe. Drones, Drone swarms, BMs no! And what tiny parts of our airspace are actually protected?
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,… Read more »
I agree with that.
Although this crop of defence statements belong on a defence parody channel….
Well said Danielle 👏
Would shorter range systems not be more of a threat? Drones and the like, rather than large long range cruise or ballistic missiles? If CAMM-MR can be developed quickly, or even CAMM-ER, a few well placed sites covering key locations would be enough and something like Dragonfire or Terrahawk could do the rest.
Might you be getting a bit too heavy on the acronyms there, Daniele, to be understood by any but the most entrenched members of the Defence Chateratti? I’ve been on this and other Defence forums for a number of years and still had to guess at a couple. ADR: Air Defence Region ASCS: Air Support/Surveillance and Control System? CRC: Control Reporting Centre DI: Defence Intelligence GBAD: Ground-Based Air Defence KP: Key Points/Positions? QRA: Quick Reaction Alert RP: Reporting Post RRH: Remote Radar Head You make a valid point when you suggest our sensor systems are adequate for classic air threats… Read more »
Agree. Cant cover every location and every threat and QRA does its role very well. But there is a big difference between what is currently in place and what a reasonable defence against day 1 conventional attack may look like….even compared to whats in place / being established for those with smaller budgets. (Sky Sabre wouldn’t be in the Falklands if QRA was adequate)…and I’m working on basis that a day 1 attack on UK won’t come with prior messaging inviting pistols at dawn. Ps. 2% is too light. 3.5% probably far to high. Well spent 2.5 – 2.75% should… Read more »
However, the rules of the game have now changed since the end of the Cold War. Before, the Air Defence posture was geared towards defending the UK against air launched cruise missile attacks launched by Tu22M, 95 and 160 coming around the North Cape. Which led to the RAF’s requirement for long range interdiction aircraft such as the Tornado F3, then Typhoon and to some extents the future FCAS. However, Russia’s war with Ukraine has shown that they heavily favour ground based long range cruise missiles, but also short range ballistic missiles, as per the Iskander weapon system. You could… Read more »
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?
Russian long range bombers launching cruise missiles from the North Sea. These aircraft repeatedly shadow our air defence zones.
Submarines in the North Sea or Atlantic can also launch cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.
When discussing ballistic and cruise missiles, I mean conventional weapons not negated by our nuclear deterrent.
Russia won’t be stupid enough to attack the uk directly, as any attack needs to be followed up by ground forces and where are they coming from?
Only reason for attacking the uk is if it turned into total war with nato, at which point the uk would be the least of Russias issues.
However agree in theory a sub could launch missiles at our limited air bases / naval bases to take the uk out of the fight. However realistically that isn’t going to happen.
My concern is the next afgan/Iraq war is going to be flooded with drones and bases will need to be defended from them.
Go on them captain complacent, do tell just what defences we have against missile attack, something even the gibbons in parliament are starting to wake up to…
Another Russian troll? at no point has the UK ever been unable to defend its own air space.
Never in the field of human conflict was so much forgotten by so many….
Jon.
Due to the new posting format I was unable to reply to you above.
I thought I was going light on the acronyms there!
You were correct with all of them, thanks for detailing.
I agree. I fear Labour will indeed improve home GBAD to the point our expeditionary capability suffers more.
Given the left’s loathing in getting involved in “overseas jollies” it wouldn’t surprise me at all. Neither would then getting rid of overseas bases either.
Thereby hamstringing this nation for good.
In which case, we might as well be Sweden.
Tack för det.
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.
If we can’t adequately defend our own airspace then we cannot defend any others! Air superiority is vital nowadays and must be defended at all costs. The reason Hitler never came here was because we retained superiority in the air which severely reduced and negated his freedom of movement to do so. And the reason D Day did succeed was because we had air superiority.
“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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Agreed.
This government, so far, is as bad as the last in this regard.
Maybe we can dig some Thunderbird or Bloodhound missels out? There must be some knocking about in military museums somewhere.
Lots of Bloodhound hardstanding still about I think. Doubt more than a handful of actual missiles!
I’m not sure if we have any Rapier left, nevermind Bloodhound.
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
Gravehawk isn’t a start?
Well said, Cripes.
Government as always out of touch with reality. The RAF has no ground based air defence, the Army has one Regt that is it part of which always in the Falklands. We could not defend a deployed Div against modern threats and that is if we manage scrap together enough men and equipment to make a Div in the first place. There is nothing else 6 Type 45’s most which are under repair. A layered air defence is needed but i fear we do not have the money. And can any one tell me why we only got enough Sky… Read more »
What nonsense. It’s like highlighting and proclaiming his contribution to the NHS by owning a box of plasters.