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.

UK warned it is ‘vulnerable’ to missile attack

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.

Britain looking at options for air defence to defend UK

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.”

Lisa West
Lisa has a degree in Media & Communication from Glasgow Caledonian University and works with industry news, sifting through press releases in addition to moderating website comments.

41 COMMENTS

  1. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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….

          • 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 (apart from maybe over Ireland). However, the threat technologies are broadening. Whether our capabilities are also good enough to track ship-launched cruise missiles, intermediate range ballistic missiles, and long-range drone-delivered precision attacks, etc is a different question. Then there’s grey zone, local attacks and you yourself mention cyber. I’d hope these were all covered but I’m not certain. We know that civil defence is not what it was. Are we keeping up with new threats or are we polishing remnant Cold War systems and hoping that they are still good enough?

            As for the actual effectors, the much-reduced RAF is pretty much it, and air-launched missiles won’t be able to bring down a mass attack. There may be a couple of Sky Sabre systems that can be repurposed for a show at the next UK Olympics and maybe some Starstreaks and Martlets with the RA, nothing permanent or of sufficient effect. There are too few ships to patrol the seas, much less to add to our air defences. There used to be a Joint GBAD HQ until around the end of the 2010s, but the RAF element was disbanded leaving just the RA.

            You ask how we pay for it and the stark answer is we can’t. Not without hollowing out our conventional forces even further. That doesn’t mean we have a sufficient homeland defence, just that we’ve prioritised other things more highly. There are few on this forum that think 2.5% overall spend will be enough to materially change anything and certainly not enough to add large extra capabilities. We have to choose between maintaining conventional deterrence, reducing the likelihood of war, and paying for a homeland defence to mitigate the effect of war if it arises. If, as expected, the SDR adds GBAD as a priority, I’d be willing to wager that there won’t be enough fresh money to cover it and, nuclear having been ringfenced, we will see a further degredation of the Army, Navy (especially marines) and Air Force.

          • 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 be adequate give the large scale of UK GDP and relatively small geographical area to incorporate a reasonable GBAD. just my thoughts.

          • 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 include drones, but Russia does not seem to have very long range (1000km+) suicide drones as the Ukrainian’s do.

            This all changed when Russia launched the “experimental” Oreshnik intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM) in Nov 24 at Dnipro. It turns out that the IRBM was a variant of the RS-26, which normally carries nukes. But instead was fitted with possibly 6 re-entry vehicles carrying conventional high explosives.

            This is a bit of a game changer for two reasons. The first is, how is it possible to determine if the missile is carrying nukes or not, as it has the same thermal signature as the nuke carrying version? Only after it has landed will it be obvious. Secondly, these can be launched from mainland Russia to hit the UK, not just from Kaliningrad or Belarus. So finding the mobile launch vehicle prior to launch is going to be incredibly difficult.

            The Oreshnik sends its payload in to lower earth orbit. Meaning realistically that it can only be intercepted in either the cruise or terminal phases. Therefore the UK at present, cannot practically defend itself against this threat. For starters there are not enough T45s to cover the whole of the UK, let alone the most built up or critical infrastructure areas. Even with the Aster’s Block 1 upgrade, the ships have to be in the right place and right time to enable a terminal interception. The RAF’s QRA Typhoons cannot intercept this threat.

            There are solutions for protecting the UK against this threat. The silver plated solution is to purchase either SM-3 or Arrow-3. Which is now proven to intercept exoatmospheric targets. The bronze plated solution is to purchase either SM-6, THAAD or Arrow-2, as each has been proven to intercept threats in the terminal phase. However, the Gold plated solution to combine the silver and bronze for a more layered defence.

            The bronze let alone the silver solutions on their own are not cheap. There are currently no European alternatives to match SM-3 or Arrow-3. It would take at least 20 years of development to get to where we are today. However MBDA could quite easily match SM-6, THAAD and Arrow-2. Even by adding an additional longer burning stage to Aster 30.

            You would need a minimum of three batteries of the terminal bronze SAM system to cover the main population centers of the UK. Which would then extend to at least six systems for NI, the NE of Scotland and the SW of England and Southern Wales. But as Israel found out recently. You must also have enough stock to cover a full battery reload, otherwise a second strike is likely to get through.

            I guess another option is to buy in to the German led European GBAD program, that is purchasing the Arrow-3 system. I would say that this system will be more at risk from shorter ranged Russian missiles and to my mind, would be like putting all your eggs in to one basket. The air defence system needs to be a system of layered systems, that to an extent can cover each other in case some get taken out.

            The question is not do we need the system? But how would we pay for it on top of expanding our military’s conventional capabilities, that have been systematically hollowed out by successive Governments? A rise to 2.5% GDP would not be enough. It may need something like what Germany did with their emergency funding program. Long term is a different question. Additionally how do you protect the military’s funding from short termist politicians?

        • 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…

        • 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.

  2. 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 🙄 🇬🇧

  3. 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.

  4. “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 😀

    • Maybe we can dig some Thunderbird or Bloodhound missels out? There must be some knocking about in military museums somewhere.

  5. 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?

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here