The Ministry of Defence has said it is continually reviewing command arrangements for the UK’s ground-based air defence as part of wider efforts to protect critical national infrastructure, while declining to provide detail on how planned Integrated Air and Missile Defence spending will be divided between interceptors and supporting systems.
In a series of written answers to questions from Luke Akehurst MP, the government confirmed that responsibility for protecting critical national infrastructure remains a priority and that command arrangements are assessed on an ongoing basis.
Responding to a question on whether existing command structures for ground-based air defence had been reviewed, Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the MOD “continually reviews its operational capabilities, including command arrangements for ground-based air defence, to ensure they remain effective and fit for purpose”.
He added that protection of critical national infrastructure involved close coordination with other government departments and agencies, with any changes informed by regular assessments, operational requirements and emerging threats.
The questions also probed how the government intends to allocate funding within its Integrated Air and Missile Defence programme. Pollard reiterated that the government has committed £1 billion to air and missile defence in line with the Strategic Defence Review, but said decisions on how that funding will be split between effectors, sensors and command-and-control systems will be set out later.
“The allocation of investment and timelines for Integrated Air and Missile Defence spending will be set out in the forthcoming Defence Investment Plan,” he said.
The minister declined to comment on stockpile levels of guided weapons, citing national security considerations, but said they remain under continuous review to maintain operational readiness.
A further question asked whether the MOD had assessed the adequacy of the UK’s ground-based air defence capability in a scenario where the UK had to operate without direct United States support. Pollard responded by again pointing to ongoing modernisation efforts, including systems such as Sky Sabre, and stressed the importance of interoperability with NATO allies. He said UK air and missile defence capabilities are designed to provide sovereign national defence while contributing to NATO’s collective posture, adding that they are integrated with allied systems “to defend our homeland and contribute to the strength of the NATO Alliance”.
“Consistency”, I’ll grant them that !
Always puzzles me that even the combined efforts of the “Free World” (oh and Trumpton) have yet to make real headway in Ukraine with people freezing (and worse) due to “Critical Infrastructure” damage by Soviet era weapons.
£1,000,000,000 doesn’t seem to be that much to realistically afford the protection our massive network of “Critical!” sites would need ?
(I’m bored, waiting for the wife and off on another road trip ! )
£20bn+ is probably needed to get this off the ground properly with further annual budget of £3-6bn I would estimate
We literally have nothing at the moment, so this is from scratch
£1bn won’t even get us the missiles, it’s a joke but one that has serious implications
This is typical MOD speak
In the last calendar month UKDJ has used so many words for our governments inaction to spend on much needed projects
Numerous PLANS and PLANNING TO
STUDY or STUDYING
ASSESS and ASSESSING
SEEKS TO
INTENDS TO
LOOKING AT
NO DECISISION YET
CONSIDERS or CONSIDERING
EXAMINES OR EXAMINING
DELAYS
SETS OUT TO
REVIEW or REVIEWING
TRIALS (forf ever)
DESIGNWORK (for ever)
Also RULES OUT and REJECTS which when the Treasury have their day when the DIP is finally issued will be POSTPONED for ever and CANCELLED
Yup, you nailed that !
The last calendar month… or maybe a lunar month, because by the time the MOD finishes studying it, the tides have shifted twice… 🤦♂️
I’m beginning to be much more selective about the articles I read here (mind you the number of posted articles is increasing), perhaps we need two divisions here, ie real news (as used to predominate here and ironically I was always disappointed when there was a slow day), and the increasing number of stories like this that simply repetitively detail mostly parliamentary questions and answers that mean little in terms of information and as others have said are pretty much the same non committal or non informing answer at all, really just procedural in nature sadly. The true nature of which and the indeed the nature of the Govt involved has long been evident here months ago. Not a criticism of UKDJ as such just a reflection on the groundhog days in which we live and thus the need to focus most effort on the important stuff to avoid burn out.
Yeah, I’m not a fan of these parliamentary questions and standard holding answers. When nothing’s happening in the UK, I’d prefer articles on other militaries, they’d have more substance and get the discussions going.
I would like more question and discussion like article.. more opinion pieces.
We could get all the tax dodging companies to pay for it as it will be protecting their investments
In not BS speak, they haven’t got a clue.
£1 billion for air and missile defence is a joke, that will buy you a single ABM battery.
The obvious solution is to purchase SAMP/T from Italy. Their Kronos system is already integrated with CAMM and should easily adapt to CAMM MR when it’s ready. They system can fire Aster 30 block 1 and Aster 30 NT both of which are capable of dealing with IRBM’s and have proven more effective than Patriot in Ukraine.
However it’s also important to get this nonsense about protecting UK critical infrastructure from Russian IRBM’s out of anyone’s heads. This is Trump esc golden dome crap. We need ABM capability to defend key deployed military infrastructure like HQ’s or airbases.
We can’t defend every single power station in the UK from conventional ballistic missiles. The cost would be insane. If Russia starts lobbing IRBM’s at the UK then we will have to assume they are nuclear armed and act accordingly.
What “Command arrangements”?
These are well known.
The only assets we have are mostly under 7th Air Defence Group which is a Field Army asset to support 1 and 3 UK Divisions, and assigned to the ARRC.
Comprises 16 Regiment RA with a number of launchers or systems which remain ambiguous as HMG won’t say how many, but they were minimal to start with.
12 Regiment RA with HVM Starstreak, both LMM and on Stormer, which is SHORAD, it’s Batteries assigned to our Brigades, and not all are covered as there are too few.
106 Regiment RA, the Army Reserve component.
These are not for defence of fixed sites in the UK, no matter how much HMG now link them to home defence in their spin statements. They are for defence of the deployed Field Army. Removing parts for home defence leaves the Army without.
Dets of 16RA were used for the G7 meeting in Cornwall and in London during the Olympics because there was sod all else.
The RAF also has the Defence Warning and Reporting Flight and No 2 CUAS Wing RAF Regiment with ORCUS and various anti Drone systems.
And for completeness, SF probably have their own assets like Stinger and the RM have an AD Troop on LMM Starstreak.
There are rumours that 7th ADG might move to Brigade status, and get a third regular Regiment, as part of the reports from the CGS that MRAD was to double and SHORAD was to triple.
We await to see words turned into reality.
A commitment from HMG to create dedicated UKGBAD IN ADDITION TO THESE would be welcome, but with only a 1 billion budget and the usual words with no commitment, what would that actually buy?
More spin and hot air until solid action taken for me.
Waste of time as usual.
Same old awaiting that, thinking about this, might buy that, it never gets old doing bugger all. God knows why there no money the MOD have not ordered any kit new in 20 months, apart from spares etc, where has all the money gone?. DIP will be a total farce hidden in long winded whaffle and doble talk and MOD spin,
Its all fine words in a peaceful world not a war in sight, going to make the Army 10x more lethal, yes for those that serve in it as they will have no kit or clapped out kit, job done then. Promise kept.
If we actually cared about the air defence of the UK we would have kept Tranche 1 Typoon in.service. Our ground based air defence is for all intents and purposes none existant.
Could M346 with gun pods and missiles have a role?
What do you get for £1B?
Well the 6 new Sky Sabre somethings were £118 million.
Note this passage from DE&S own website.
“We have awarded a £118 million contract to MBDA for the manufacture and delivery of six state-of-the-art Land Ceptor missile systems, bolstering the UK’s air defence capabilities and supporting national security.
The three-year contract will deliver not only the six MRAD (Medium Range Air Defence) Land Ceptor launchers but also a suite of supporting equipment, including 12 fire unit support vehicles for ammunition, eight vehicles for baggage, and eight threat evaluation and weapon assignment systems. Additionally, the contract includes resources for spares to support the Land Ceptor and the wider Sky Sabre system of systems.
They use “system” and “launcher” in the same piece. Which is cobblers as the two are very different, as as “system” I believe has 2 or 3 launchers as well as the supporting fire control, radar, and other vehicles to comprise a Fire Group. These are included in the price, but the fact remains we still have 6 launchers or 6 systems stated, which cannot be. It is either 2 Systems of 3 launchers or 3 Systems of 2 launchers for the 6. Which is it??
So 1 Billion should comprehensively equip the 4 Batteries of 16 RA which many suspect are deficient in their allocated number of Sky Sabre Systems.
Which would be good. Or, add that third Regiment that I mentioned above if the juggling in the army shifts bodies into the GBAD area of the RA.
Hardly Iron Dome or David’s Sling; at most air defence for 6 locations against drones and cruise missiles?
all talk and no substance .
Scenario:
Oscar II on the edge of the deep water approx 650km north of Lossiemouth.
Potential armament up to 72 Zircon missiles (or a mix of Zirkon, Oniks and Kalibre)
10 Zircon at RAF Faroes, Sax Vord, Benbecula, Buchan and Brizlee wood (Flight times approx. 70s to 300s) – Long range radar
5 Zircon at RAF Lossiemouth (Fl time 210s) – QRA shed and P8 Flightline
QRA response time is ~240s to launch.
Similar initial strike could be achieved in around twelve minutes using Oniks. Both Rosyth and Faslane would be within reach of the remaining 57 Oniks.
Not a bad opening strike from one submarine, given that we would have zero chance of intercepting Zircon or finding the submarine in response.
Its amazing that they don’t think that this is more of a priority to think about defending against this plus all the key navy ship sub ports and bases. Our European allies seem to be getting on with it. Is the UK is asleep? Utilising shared missile inventories and systems with the Navy, is common sense. Its not just GBAD, what about Shorad systems, ground based and mobile Stormer replacement for the Army? All the equipment developed, sent and tested in Ukraine, some of its got to be useful to the UK. They could also add in a few more T31s with AAW/ASW/MCM capabilities into the DIP mix instead of spending millions on T91 drone boats with mk41s and 40mm!
A billion pound 🤣😂😅
With his latest tariff announcement targeting NATO allies for defying him, the Great Orange One has nudged NATO one step nearer the end so this utter shower of useless ***** in government better stop talking and start acting and quickly. It is clear even to a moron like Starmer that we have no chance of America helping defend this island so we better do it ourselves. Maybe we should form an alliance with more reliable people in future….China, Nth Korea and Iran maybe ….joking I am…. I think.
There is such an enormous gap between what we need for UK GBAD and what we’ve got or are likely to get. For the medium range capability, we need minimum 3 Sky Sabre regiments, one each to support 1st and 3rd Divisions in the field, one for home defence in the UK. First problem – we only have one medium air defence regt. An air defence regt in the Rapier era had IIRC 18 launchers (3 batteries of 6, each with 8 missiles), which is not a lot to defend a 3-brigade army division against incoming cruise and ballistic missiles.
As far as I can make out from the MOD”s opaque and confusing press releases, I surmise that we have actually ordered 6 launchers so far I.e. one battery, at least two of which are at Mount Pleasant. The MOD masks this tiny amount by switching the nomenclature to ‘systems’, which sounds grander and more purposeful. But actually, a system is just a battery of 6 launchers with a Giraffe radar and a C2 truck.
Regarding UK GBAD, Jim is quite right that we could never afford to scatter Sky Sabres around to protect all our key civil infrastructure, it would require several regts. But nor could we field the numbers needed to protect just our dozen key military bases, to be of any use, they would each need 4 or 6 launchers to handle a swarm attack plus a big stockpile of missiles in reserve. The best I think we could do is create a missile line up the east coast and round to the Moray Firth. Sky Sabre has a max range of 94 miles, meaning one battery can cover about 180 miles, so the missile line would need 3 batteries I.e. one regt. It would also need a 4th battery to protect Faslane, as the Premier target.
Whether Sky Sabre is the right answer is above my pay grade. Most of our allies seem to be going for a 3-tier air defence: a low level Starstreak-type weapon to handle UAVs and helicopters, a medium missile for local area/ground force defence and a long-range one to handle cruise and ballistic missiles. Poland has gone for CAMM for the medium level and the Israeli Arrow for the big anti-missile task.
We have pretty much the same marked shortfall at low-level air defence, with just one Starstreak regiment when 3 or 4 are needed. We are again very far behind here, Germany and others are buying hundreds of Sky Rangers and similar, armed with a 30mm cannon to handle UAVs and a Starstreak-type missile to take out fast jets and whatever else.
One other thing that stands out here is that we have a greatly increased need for artillery regiments to handle the range of modern threats. Re-roling other troops to form such regts is not a great answer, it will just leave us short somewhere else. The thing we really need to see is some increase in army numbers, we are so short, even 5,000 more would fill a lot of the gaps in the ORBAT.
The perennial problem with quantifying the UK GBAD requirement is that the MOD always has the same two off-ramps, which are trailed in the Minister’s answer.
1. We are pretty well protected by our allies’ air defence shields to the East. AKA let Poland, Germany and the Benelux countries provide the air defence. I wonder if that is still a realistic proposition – Russia seems able to chuck a lot of missiles about on a daily basis in Ukraine and it only needs a few to come our way to seriously degrade our main bases.
Plus there is no big allied air defence system to our North, from which we must expect ground- or submarine-based missiles heading our way.
2. We don’t need much in the way of UK GBAD .because of course we have our Typhoon interceptors to down incoming missiles.
One little flaw is that we will only have about 40 frontline Typhoons in the UK, which is not a lot if we are getting incoming missile salvos.
And given that some of these missiles will be travelling at Mach 3 ,4, 5, thus giving a very short time to react, can we get Typhoons in the air and in any position to intercept the incoming? I would think very probably not.
It doesn’t mean that the MOD won’t ignore the risks and just whizz off down their off-ramps to save money.
Might be useful if the Hawk trainer fleet and its successor ought to have some air-air to air ability as a force multiplier. The hypersonic missile(s) the UK are developing, any secondary ground to air use?
According to publications Greece’s “Achilles Shield” GBAD part will cost less than 3.5 billions, what will the UK get for one?