As if by magic, this last weekend, the UK media woke up to the fact that Britain has no effective defence against ballistic missiles. The military and defence commentariat has known this for some time, so why the sudden interest?
The probable cause is the widespread use of such weapons in Ukraine and in the Middle East. The Russians have made much use of their ballistic missile arsenal – together with drones and cruise missiles – in their ongoing assault against Ukraine’s energy infrastructure.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
And in the Middle East, the Iranians have lobbed their ballistic missiles against Israel, as have the Houthis and other ne’er-do-wells in the region. The Houthi terrorists have also launched a number of anti-shipping adapted ones against commercial traffic in the Red Sea.
What has been the result of such attacks? Well, the Ukrainians have been hard pressed to counter Russia’s missiles with a lack of effective anti-ballistic missile defence (ABMD) and many have hit their intended targets.
Israel, on the other hand, boasts a sophisticated multi-layered defence against such threats. Popularly known as ‘Iron Dome,’ it actually consists of three different but coordinated systems; first, there are the long-range Arrow-2 and Arrow-3 interceptors, developed by Israel with an Iranian missile attack in mind, and designed to engage threats in and outside the atmosphere respectively.
This is backed up by the mid-range ‘David’s Sling’ system, designed to shoot down ballistic missiles fired from 100 to 200 kilometres away. And finally, there is the ‘Iron Dome’ proper, a short-range system built to intercept the kind of rockets fired by Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
In addition to these, the Israelis are developing a laser-based system to neutralize enemy rockets and drones at an estimated cost of just $2 per interception, and the Americans sent the advanced antimissile system THAAD, or Terminal High Altitude Area Defence system, to Israel late last year. THAAD is a critical part of the U.S. military’s air defences and is designed to intercept and destroy short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missile threats in their terminal phase of flight.
So Israel is pretty well provided for when it comes to ABMD. How does the UK currently stand in this area?
The answer is that Britain has nothing, zilch, nada, zero when it comes to ABMD.
Yes, I know that HMS Diamond managed to knock down a Houthi anti-ship ballistic missile in the Red Sea recently, but that was operating at the very limit of its capabilities. It’s no surprise that the Royal Navy is now scrambling to update the rest of its T45 destroyers with a proper capability.
Now, I hear you say that the threat of a ballistic missile attack against the UK at the moment is minimal, and I would agree. But all defence planning is hypothetical until you’re actually involved in a war, so let’s just conduct a short review of where British national interests might be vulnerable.
Top of the list must come Cyprus, where Britain maintains two sovereign base areas at Akrotiri and Dhekelia. The former is the location of the RAF base critical for operations across the Middle East, while the latter has the joint GCHQ/NSA signals intelligence listening station at Ayios Nikolaos. Both are within range of Iran’s long-range ballistic missiles and also of those which might be launched by its proxies in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. They have no permanent ABMD provision.
Then there are various other strategic locations around the globe which are vital UK interests – Gibraltar, the Falklands, Diego Garcia, and Brunei to name but a few. All are vulnerable to submarine-launched or air-launched ballistic missile attack, and none have ABMD.
And what about the UK itself? Surely the capital, London, is appropriately defended, and also the independent nuclear deterrent submarine base at Faslane on the Clyde?
Sorry folks, the answer is no. At a pinch, you could argue that London might be defended by stationing a T45 destroyer on the Thames, and that Faslane could be protected by another stationed in the Firth of Clyde, but as only two out of Britain’s six T45 destroyers are available for operations at present – and they have many other tasks too – then the rest of the UK’s national interests are undefended.
This state of affairs is not very satisfactory, hence the cries recently from the usual suspects that “something must be done.” But what, and who’s going to pay for it? The UK defence budget cannot cope with present demands as it is.
Over to you, Sir Keir Starmer and Defence Secretary John Healey. You’re the government and it’s your job to fix it. Until you do, Britain and its interests are wide open to ballistic missile attack.
Our enemies and potential enemies will not have failed to notice.
Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a political and defence commentator and former army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk.
UK uses Aster in the navy. It is Proven and effective. Why not participate in the evolution of the system, with the naval and land base version? MBDA is in UK, Aster makers are Italy and France. I have seen worst odds for a successfull story…
An obvious solution here is to integrate Aster 30NT onto Sky Sabre system and then build another half-dozen batteries.
Sky Sabre doesn’t have the right radar for Aster 30 and certainly not for ABMD capability. We would have to buy full SAMP/T capability and SAMP/T even with block 1 NT which is years away can only shoot down shorter range ballistic missiles. Only the Blokc 2 NT will approach the capability of systems like SM3 and Arrow 3 and blk 2 is nothing more than a wish at the moment.
That isn’t really true. These are software defined systems that require formatted data inputs that can come from anywhere. The days of vertically integrated weapons systems [with dedicated bus comms] are, thankfully, long past. The issue with the Giraffe Radar that Land Ceptor /Sky Sabre uses is that it is the wrong type of radar for that range envelope. It is absolutely fine for the Ceptor missile as that system is supposed to put a 50km bubble over an area. IRL it will protect a bigger area than that I’m sure. Before we start overcooking the pudding are we assuming… Read more »
That’s exactly what I said. Your not getting a giraffe radar to provide exo atmospheric targeting data for an Atser 30 no matter how many software plugins you give it.
Sky Sabre can’t do ABM.
If I remember correctly the Army has instigated a program to replace the Saab Giraffe radar. As like you’ve mentioned it’s too short ranged for longer ranged medium missiles. The Army and in particular the RA have stated that Sky Sabre “should” be getting longer ranged missiles. With both the CAMM-ER and MR variants being mentioned. Ukraine has highlighted how effective SRBM are. There simply is not enough capable SAM units in Ukraine to counter missiles such as Iskander-M. However, systems such as Patriot that Ukraine has been gifted. Has demonstrated that it can intercept SRBM with a high Pk… Read more »
Agreed, I did some calculations and realised that the UK would have a good defence with six batteries of Aster 1NT and 9-12 batteries of Land Ceptor/Land Ceptor MR. Each fire battery for both systems would have 4-6 launch vehiciles. Key air defence locations such as a combined Aster/Land Ceptor location should also have a point defence sytstem such as Sky Ranger.
The combined air defence locations should be Lossiemouth, Clyde, Cornwall/Devon, East Anglia/Lincolnshire/Midlands-Derby and possibly London. The Land Ceptor sites should be W.Yorks to cover the radar sites and Cattrick, Barrow, Fairford-Brize
Aster-30 Block II has been dead for a while. There is no current European missile optimised for defence against longer-ranged ballistic missiles. There is the Aquila project, but that actually is decades away.
Is Aster proven against ballistic missiles?
Base Aster 30 is what Diamond used in the gulf, but against a pretty basic ballistic missile in the grand scheme of things. We have no idea whether the SAMP/T system/s in Ukraine (utilising the Block 1 missile) have been used against ballistic (or hypersonic for that matter) targets, but I’d be surprised if not. There hasn’t been very much publicity about the SAMP/T in Ukraine, but they’re apparently pretty happy with it. In theory, the Block 1/ Block 1NT updates that the RN are currently involved with should improve on what has now been proven in the current Block… Read more »
However, Mad Vlad is providing free test targets and we are happy to let the nice Mr Zelenski test 1NT and give us the data to improve the software. So you have a very rapid spiral against more sophisticated missiles than are fired at the Israeli systems. It is worth bearing in mind that the missiles that Iron Dome deals with aren’t that special and are a generation behind the ‘best’ Russian ones…. The raw A30 is a pretty formidable missile and has superb terminal manoeuvring with puff-paff quite a lot can be done with it as it is software… Read more »
No communication on Aster perf in Ukraine is due to a request from Italy. But Kiev still ask for moré batteries.
I’d prefer we didn’t get a running commentary TBH.
We just need to do the spiral stuff.
In 2021 the RAN contracted Lockheed Martin Australia to upgrade the Hobart class Aegis combat system to Block 9 necessary for anti ballistic missile defence. SM6 is being acquired as part of a $7 billion (AUD) FMS sale which will transform the Hobarts into a BMD platform. Hobart class destroyers have taken part with a number of USN and other Aegis equipped navies in BMD simulated and live fire exercises including Pacific Dragon and Flight Test Aegis Weapon System (FTM) 32. The exercises have also integrated sensor tracks from RAAF E7 Wedgtails and Anzac class frigates demonstrating the CEAFAR radars… Read more »
My parents woke up to the fact that Britain has no defence against ballistic missiles in September 1944 when the first V-2 landed on London.
To be fair back then, no one did.
We had an excuse in 1944. No excuse now.
And that’s the problem an air defence\ABM system that is worth anything is going to cost a good 3-5 billion. The real problem is the same for most of the UKs strategic infrastructure, it’s been capital starved for at least 15 years arguably 25. Essentially HMG needs capital expenditure to recapitalise the 1) MBT force 2) self propelled artillery force 3) IFV force 4)Frigate force 5) amphibious force 6) mine warfare force 7) fleet replenishment force 8) destroyer force ( medium term) 9) Ballistic missile submarine force 10) SSN force ( medium term) 11) tactical airlift ( rotor) 12) fast… Read more »
I don’t agree tax payers aren’t willing to foot the bill. Tax payers are just fed up with government’s squandering what they already give. I would bet if every Tax payer could elect what % of their tax was spent where, defence would be higher up the list than many government departments.
Our glorious leaders aren’t listening. None of the three forces Navy, Army or Air Force will necessarily want to accept responsibility or cost. It should be the RAF in the lead. I hope they have the energy and will work to make a success of it borrowing the support and integrating with the other two.
I’m not sure on that one. I would happily see an extra 1% on my income tax if it went to defence. I’m sure you would as well.. but I think most people would not. Infact there is only 40% support for increasing any defence spending and moving to 2.5% GDP, before you mention a tax rises.
The British public in general have little concept of the theory and requirements around effective deterrence or any notion of the destruction on our nation a world war would cause.
Yup my 0.5% of GDP over 20 year defence capital investment holiday estimation!
Divide by two as some of the investment would now be obsolete!
And that’s the problem. Our politicians are not brave enough to invest on that scale if it means taxes going up, or admitting we might have to spend a little less on health/education ect. They worry more about votes at the next election.
Yes sadly no one is willing to have difficult conversations.. because they know the other side will use it against them and they will loss. Unless there can be political consensus I don’t see a path to adequate levels of deterrent before we get dragged into a catastrophic war and end up with a crippled economy for a generation. It’s very frustrating, as people will not see that just enough to probably win a major war is not enough or the aim, you have to spend to deter and against authoritarians who think your politically weak you have to show… Read more »
Well, there’s pensioner UBI – aka state pension – that could very easily be a source of cash for these investments. £165bn next year is the expected bill, of which 25% of recipient households are millionaires and 61% own their homes outright (which means the largest normal recurrent expense is nil). Dipping your hand into the education budget, which is another very critical long term investment, before addressing the grey-haired elephant in the room is a very interesting choice, especially for someone highlighting the flaws in government investment choices. Means-test that and kill the triple lock, suddenly a lot of… Read more »
Look at how much the US has spent on GBAD against ICBMs to achieve at best a 50% success rate in scripted tests. The systems, deployed in Alaska and California are designed to counter an attack by a rogue actor, not a full scale missile attack. For that, the US relies on its deterrent triad of land, air and submarine launched nuclear weapons. In addition, it has anti missile capabilities that operate in the terminal phase of a ballistic missile – ground based Patriot, THAAD and ship based Standard. The whole point of the vast cost of nuclear weapons is… Read more »
Very sensible and measured response – the good colonel is right to point out gaps but a tad alarmist about London & Faslane.
MAD theoretically protects you from a nuclear attack. It does not deter an attack with non-nuclear ballistic missiles. As the ballistic missile attack on Israel surely proves.
There’s also an element of us not knowing what type of missile has been fired at us. If somebody won’t fire a missile because they know we can’t tell the difference and we’d go nuclear if in doubt, I would argue that fits within MAD. However, it is stretching it a bit.
Fair point but that get’s into areas such as “launch on warning” and I don’t believe the UK has that policy. I think it’s fair to say that everyone knows that the UK or any major nuclear power will not respond to a conventional attack with a nuclear weapon and that leaves this giant loophole to be exploited but conventionally armed missiles.
We don’t have that sort of nuclear response because we have nothing that can be degraded by a counterforce strike so any UK response would come after. The US and Russia both have the full triad that can be degraded by counterforce and so would likely respond earlier than the UK.
I think there are other considerations for/if the UK not officially having a launch on warning doctrine. A decapitation strike on civilian and military leadership could be considered a counterforce strike.
Netking the Uk has a pretty uniquely diffuse launch doctrine, specifically designed around a small countries decapitation risk. No one could ever really risk a decapitation, knowing that MAD essentially would come down to the secret content of a letter in a safe.
Agreed, I think we need to consider what we are trying to defend against. I’ve visited some of the Cold War nuclear bunkers that were supposed to provide a secure point of control for various irradiated parts of the country in the event of a full-on nuclear war with the USSR that shattered/melted London. Or at least they would have provided control until the food and suchlike ran out, then all bets were off. Fundamentally, we are too small a nation to survive a full-on nuclear war strike; The USA relied on their size to absorb a lot of the… Read more »
Hybrid war is already in progress in multiple domains so that MAD is not the main UK threat. Continuous Presence At Sea has that covered. Damage to critical infrastructure seems to be a big part of hybrid war both physical and electronic. Misinformation built on that being business as usual for GCHQ and Intelligence services. It’s clear that the aggressors will share their pain by hybrid warfare so defence of critical infrastructure is already in place and needs to improve as the pressure gets higher. Quite modest investment compared to ABM GBAD… Leading the watch keeping efforts in North and… Read more »
The UK’s relatively small size in some ways is an advantage against a rogue aggressor because we have less area to defend. Against a mass attack we are pretty much toast. A system based in South of Ireland would help defend against a seaborne launched from the Atlantic.
‘South of Ireland’ – careful, there !
We don’t have that sort of nuclear response because we have nothing that can be degraded by a counterforce strike so any UK response would come after. The US and Russia both have the full triad that can be degraded by counterforce and so would likely respond earlier than the UK.
Or perhaps wait until the US perfects GBAD for ICBMs, then apply for a FMS? Undoubtedly, many commentators would complain re cost and MIC implications, but occasionally MOTS are justified. 🤔
Hi Peter, agree in regards to Nuclear weapons. The cost effective method is deterred as it’s effectively 8 times cheaper to lob ICBMs with multiple reentry vehicles than it is to intercept the individual reentry vehicles.. essentially you need around 2 ground based interceptors per Reentry vehicle so to interception the payload of 1 ICBM your looking at 10 multi stage orbital/sub orbital boosters… by the time it’s finished the US will probably have spent north of 100 billion dollars to be able to intercept a handfull of ICBMs if they are lucky.. the Russian and Chinese strategic arsenals would… Read more »
Agree totally that deterrence of conventional missile attack by threat of nuclear retaliation won’t be effective. It is interesting that Russia has stated that any cruise missile attacking its soil will be assumed to be nuclear. In reality, that hasn’t happened, yet.
I think then that the question is whether it is better to invest in defensive systems or rely on deterrence through retaliation with conventional missiles.if an attack would provoke a massive counterstrike with highly accurate Tomahawks, would anyone risk it?
Indeed the issue with Russia and the US and China is that because they have the full nuclear triad they are very open to a counterforce strike and there is a good chance that if they decided they were being hit by a massive counter force strike they would launch ( it’s one of those unspoken but likely nuclear postures that a direct attack on a nations strategic deterrence is considered a reason for launching the deterrence). In reality any strike would need to not trigger that threshold. Which is why potentially throwing large numbers of cruise missiles at a… Read more »
I dont recall agreeing with Mr Crawford’s articles.
But I do with this one.
Very well, and simply, put, for any layman in defence matters to understand.
He is right about this one, he took a good lesson from the Iranian missile barrages and how Israel was prepared enough to minimise the impact of these saturation attacks.
Again he reminds us that we have bases within easy reach of Iranian missiles.
Iran still has around 2500 of various BM types should they decide to attack again.
Uk has never had an effective missile defence system – certainly since Thunderbird (1960’s – 1970’s) In fact, the army has had an appalling AD relying on blowpipe/rapier etc. I has never had a layered system
Until relatively recently the technology required to have any confidence of being able to shoot down ballistic missiles did not exist. The rationale behind CASD is that- since we cannot hope to prevent ballistic missiles from raining down on us- we ensure that we have the capability to retaliate in kind, thus deterring such an attack in the first place. That is also why CASD is CAS, rather than moored up at Faslane. Since ABM is now technically possible, it would be wise to invest in it as an additional layer of defence, but to imply that we are currently… Read more »
The really big difference is that once medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles were essentially nuclear tipped weapons that’s use was deterred by our own nuclear deterrent.. but now they are conventional weapons as well, the nuclear deterrent does not work.. any enemy would know that the UK would not invite MAD for anything less than a nuclear strike or other mass casualty WMD strike. So hitting key bases with conventionally tipped intermediate ballistic missiles is now a possibility.. as we don’t have our own Conventional IRBM to respond back.. a defence has become necessary.
What a mess we are in.
As much as I like reading UKDJ articles, I find the truth of these matters very depressing
My opinion: Procure land-based Arrow 2/3 now ….. In the long term open up manufacturing plants and build under licence.
I would not get too depressed. There is no BMD capability that exist with current technology that could reliably intercept the ballistic missile that could reach the UK today.
Yeah Jim but as we saw in the Iranian missile attacks on Israel, some missiles got through, if all 200 had got through the defences then Israel would have lost a serious amount of aircraft and functional airbases.
The lesson is: It is better to have some ABM defences as opposed to none.
I agree on having the defences but the missiles being shot at Israel that Arrow 3 had a mixed bag shooting down where significantly slower and shorter range types than anything that could reach the UK. To reach the UK from continental Russia the missile woukd have to be atleast an medium range ballistic missile and nothing but an ICBM is reaching the UK from Iran or anywhere else. No weapon today can target such missiles.
I am more concerned with Iranian missiles being used against British bases in the middle east/ Cyprus.
Not to let the last government off the hook because they have not done nearly enough and they have dragged their feet but it’s inaccurate to say the UK has no defence against ballistic missiles. We do it’s just run by NATO in Poland and Romania via AEGIS ashore and SM3 we are currently buying an additional BMD radar from Lockheed Martin to enhance the system as well. The best place to guard the UK from ballistic missiles is Poland and Romania not Dunbartonshire or Kent. Cyprus is a clear issue that needs plugging but as the threat to the… Read more »
Why do you persist in posting complete crap like this, as if you know what your talking about? What are you trying to prove? Every paragraph that you post is full of bullshit, with people constantly having to fact check everything you say.
It’s not complete crap, just partial crap. He is right in saying that ballistic missiles launched at the UK by Russia in a first strike scenario would be engaged by the Polish site, and perhaps by the Romanian site as well.
On the otherhand, each site only holds something like 24 interceptors ready at any time, and assuming that those are used up, the UK is still defenceless.
An IRBM is not an ICBM, it’s got a far lower apogee, is far slower and has less warheads.. it is possible to intercept it with a number of available systems.. ICBMs I agree with you, but there are no conventionally tipped ICBMs so the nuclear deterrent works for them.. it does not work for conventional IRBMs.. that means Thaad, SM3 or Arrow3 is a needed.
My point is you can’t intercept and IRBM that has conventional MIRV warheads like Oreshnik with any current system.
Again, this is simply not accurate. IRBM targets have been intercepted in testing by a number of different US systems including including thaad, sm3 and sm6. Please note that the oreshnik is just a modified rs-26. The sam systems I just mentioned were designed with these types of systems in mind.
Agree an IRBM can be intercepted, but the key issue is those available interception systems need to be reasonably close to to the target, due to their max altitude of interception. Which is why we need an SM3 or Arrow3 system based in the UK..not Germany.
In 2020, the USS John Finn an Arleigh Burke destroyer was used in a test to verify if SM3 could be used to intercept an ICBM. A representative missile was fired from the Marshall Islands over the Pacific towards Hawaii. The John Finn fired a single SM-3 Block IIA missile. Which intercepted the target in orbit.
This was the first successful physical test that showed SM-3 could be used to intercept ICBMs on a high apogee. There have been a number of subsequent tests that further verify SM-3 can intercept ICBMs type targets.
At DaveyB it did NOT intercept at apogee, the apogee of an ICBM is around 4000km up the very max altitude intercept of SM3 is around 1000-1200KM up. It intercepted just before it re entered the atmosphere but still on its terminal plunge. The only missile that can intercept an ICBM or IRBM at the point of full loft apogee is a ground based interceptor and that is a 22 ton, 55 foot tall and 4.2 foot wide three stage orbital boost vehicle…an SM 3 is a 1.5 ton 21 foot long and a foot and a half wide missile.
Jim, Re Cyprus. There was a Bloodhound system at RAF Episkopi from 1967 – 1995, operated sucessively by three RAF Regiment Squadrons. Think it had two launchers. Looks like the hilltop base for the missiles is still there. Ideal site for a new GBAD system for the SBA.
… from 1967 – 1975.
Good point, hopefully we go out and buy something useful.
Good to read someone here who isn’t behaving like a headless chicken! Definitely ballistic missile defence is best done at a continental/ Europe level under the control of NATO as we don’t want to be waiting for them to be close to hitting the U.K. before attempting interception. That said, I really like to see more clarity of U.K. participation in the European Sky Shield Initiative. With Arrow-3, Patriot, etc, it promises to provide the deeply layered defence that is required. The U.K. is a founder member, and I know tat Germany the lead-nation is signing contracts, but we’re hearing… Read more »
That does not work as none of the system available to Europe attack IRBMs or ICBMs at or close to their apogee, if they are fired at the UK from Russia they will cross over Germany/Central Europe at close to or at lower earth orbit 4000 km up.. SM3 arrow 3 etc intercept in the terminal phase at a max hight of only 1000km. The intercept would need to be as the warheads plunge towards the UK.
A quick buy of a few arrow 3 batteries off the back of the German deal woukd seem to be the easiest way for the UK to have its own ABM capability (and anti satellite capability as a bonus) but purchasing the LM BMD radar and putting it in Cyprus is probably best for the existing NATO ABM defences based in Romania.
I would guess this is the dilemma the MOD will currently be struggling with.
3 batteries would do it, Uk south, UK north and Cyprus.
My thoughts exactly but I think with arrow 3 we would need arrow 2 as well. The Germans are using patriot instead of arrow 2.
Aster B1 NT can do the Patriot job i think.
@ Jim and Alex. Yes I would go with Arrow 3 for the some cover against a limited Conventional IRBMs and ICBMs strike ( and Russia is never going to have many of these to throw around and even if it did it would not do a massed IRBM strike for fear of it being mistaken for a first strike nuclear attack). I agree with Alex I would go with aster for the second layer as it has commonality with the RN and means we are getting our defences from multiple sources.
Yes but we can’t use aster39 block 1 NT which does not exist yet and won’t be around for a long time in conjunction with Arrow 3, they are totally incompatible. We would have to go out and buy two systems Arrow 3 and SAMP/T.
aster 30 block 1 NT.
SAMP is Aster
“ Yes, I know that HMS Diamond managed to knock down a Houthi anti-ship ballistic missile in the Red Sea recently, but that was operating at the very limit of its capabilities. It’s no surprise that the Royal Navy is now scrambling to update the rest of its T45 destroyers with a proper capability.” Was it really at its very limits – I doubt that very much. I would have been nowhere near the limits if the radar system or the tracking that was upgraded for the ABM detection tests in the US. A30 hasn’t been fired against ballistics, as… Read more »
Yes they where fired by a Fremm against 3 balistic missiles. 3 missiles, 3 shots, 3 interceptions. The catch is the area covered by a system. In the case of a ship, the target and the battery are the same. If you take a vast area, then it goes to the speed of the incoming missile, the speed of your own interceptor and the trajectory of both (tangential or inbound). The hypersonic missiles are harder to intercept. The balistic missiles with high altitude are uneasy. The mirv are tricky. For those, you need in the case of UK, good coordination… Read more »
“Was it really at its very limits – I doubt that very much.” Hard to say but reading people who have a background in this and can speak freely to some degree in an open forum, they all seem to agree that the issue with A30 against ballistic missile is the defended area is shockingly small. The missile almost has to be travelling directly in the path of the ship launching it for to have a relatively good shot at interception. On balance I think is actually a good sign that there is some latent ABM capability already there which… Read more »
Yes, the operative bubble is very very small which is why a long range radar network or radar heads is essential to guide the missile in. The problem isn’t so much the missile or the radar it is the ‘incoming threat’ warning so that everything is T’d up ready to fire at the perfect moment. As I’ve said a few times before – I’d spend the money on the radar network as the tech is there for that. Then develop the control software for distributed batteries which won’t have their own radars. And then worry about the missiles. The fundamentals… Read more »
Would you upgrade the S1850M to the SMART-L MM front end standard? That has to be the easiest path for the T45s, right? Another option is to integrate a new upward-facing panel. I’ve no idea how easy that would be.
I don’t think the upwards facing panel is needed.
BTW I changed my mind on that.
The 1850 can be upgraded – as you say and Thales do too!
The problem isn’t so much the radars as the range of the missiles and having ‘something else’ to cue up the systems before the missile enters the bubble. If you like the overwatch function.
Patriot has much the same issue. It can shoot down ballistic missiles it just has to be close.
All SAM systems have to operate within the range of the radar and interceptor but the difference in range with the A30 for example and the patriot pac3-sme with regards to ABM range is vastly different.
Also with IRBMs and ICBMs you also have to consider attitude and apogee. These things are pretty untouchable at and around their apogee ( around 4000kms straight up) as arrow 3 and SM 3 “only” have an intercept altitude of 1000km ish..so if your ABM defences are in the wrong place your enemy can lob its IRBMs over your ABMs defences …which is why arrow 3 based in central Germany is not so useful for defending core UK infrastructure.
It’s worth remembering that these are really only tactical ballistic missiles without independent warheads.. essentially slightly faster than your cruise missile and slightly higher.. it’s not inconceivable that Aster can knock down a missile with an apogee of 200km, travelling at 4000mph if it’s in the right place.. it’s got not chance against something plunging from an apogee of in low earth orbit and travelling at 15,000 to 20,000 mph. Thats essentially a whole different missile.
The key issue with that is the effect of ships motion on track accuracy even with digital correction.
I have a funny feeling that the quantum cats-cradle is related to correcting those errors.
Aster 30 was tested against Black Soarriw in 2011 then later against the Silver Sparrow air launched ballistic missile targets. Black Sparrow mimics the Scud family of short range ballistic missiles. Whilst Silver Sparrow mimics the Iranian Shahab-3, which is classed as a medium range ballistic missile. As far as has been published the tests were successful. What the published data doesn’t show is what block Aster was used. But you can presume from the 2011 test, that it would have been Block 0 or the upgraded Block 1. I suspect the Silver Sparrow test was using a develment or… Read more »
SAMs have always been the poor relation, no pilots required!
Given that ballistic missiles (not mentioning drones) are becoming a commodity for none state proxy actors and looking at the available options I agree that only feasible solution is going for Arrow 3 (exo-atmosphere, 2400 KM range) in conjunction with some Terminal phase interceptor, cloud be Arrow 2 or THAAD, in case the Arrow 3 interception fails, for lower layers there are more options Other than this can join the MDBA AQUILA project for hypersonic interceptor Put some interceptor prices in $ here I got from Google Arrow 3 – 2M Arrow 2 – 1.5M THAAD – ? Aster 30… Read more »
Prices are very different when you spend the money on home soil and you can sell the kit to another buyer. In that case, Even if you pay more at first glance, you end up paying less because manufacturer employee spend their money on home soil, you collect taxes and your country sell the system to this parties. A simple look at catalog price don’t tell the full story. The most important thing is to be able to keep runing a production line, which is what makes you indépendant and able to defend when under attack.
Naturally the actual price may differ based on a lot of parameters, when you negotiate a deal (can take years), if it’s large enough it may include transferring of technology and local production, for example India will not agree to buy any significant equipment that is not at least partially produced locally, I read last week that Greece is negotiating with Israel about constructing a multilayered air defense with local production being part of the deal characteristics
The UK has known about this issue for a long time now. The best solution is to follow the Israeli model and use Arrow3, David Sling. Then buy the new South Korean system L- Sam. This lack of a defensive missile has been known for a long time. Some of our EU allies are already investing in this technology. UK military has been cut and cut and cut.
Just a thought… if you took the same Sampson system from a T45 and located, say, three of them in various locations around the UK, would that work? Thinking more about the infrastructure. They would be able to store far more reloads than the T45. Yes, they would be fixed – but so is Fylingdales – but at least they would be able to defend themselves.
It woukd work, that’s basically what AEGIS ashore is and an Arleigh Burke. Big issue is that the T45 destroyer also does not have an ABM capability comparable to Arrow 3, SM3 or THAAD so no point in using it.
I hate to say it but I almost hope there is an attack because that is the only way appropriate action will be taken. Israel had the iron dome precisely because it has been attacked by these missiles over the years. Relying on maybe 3 at best T45’s won’t cut much ice!
What if our existing defences in Poland or Romania intercept the missile?
Then everyone woukd think we have no issue.
Our ?
What if Poland and Romania ignore Missiles heading to the UK in order to prioritise their own defence?
Relying on foreign countries to come to our aid when we are under attack is complacent to say the least.
They don’t control the missiles, NATO controls them.
Apogee issue Jim…SM 3 has a max altitude of around 1000km an IRBM can be lobed a hell of a lot higher at its apogee than that that. Essentially if Russia wanted to fire a conventional IRBM missile at the Uk and the ABM defence was based in Central Europe it would just lob them over the top. ABM defences like SM3 need to hit in the terminal dive.
The UK is not defenceless – it has a deterrent capability, both nuclear and conventional.
Deterrence only works when the other side believes it couldn’t succeed. If they decided to call our bluff were are f*****d! How many airbases do we have that can be knocked out with a few cruise missiles, same with dockyards. Two aircraft carriers that would be toasted in a multi missile attack.
Who would be silly enough to fire ballistic missiles at the UK? Like firing one at any of the nuclear powers it risks the MAD response.
Maybe but one Oreshnik fired at Lossiemouth could cripple the RAF (if it actually works) one fired at Faslane could do the same for the entire Submarine force.
We would not go nuclear over two conventional missiles fired at us.
We need a large scale Conventional cruise missile capability to act as a deterrent to such attacks. We have the missiles in storm shadow but we need something like Rapid Dragon to launch dozens out of a C17 or A400M in one go.
Yes Prime Minister – The Grand Design Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe. Jim Hacker: I don’t want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe. Sir Humphrey: It’s a deterrent. Jim Hacker: It’s a bluff. I probably wouldn’t use it. Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don’t know that you probably wouldn’t. Jim Hacker: They probably do. Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn’t. But they can’t certainly know. Jim Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn’t. Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably… Read more »
Prime Minister, you believe in the nuclear deterrent? – Oh, yes. Why? – Pardon? Why? -Because it deters. Whom? -Pardon? Whom? Whom does it deter? – The Russians from attacking us. Why? – Pardon? Why? -They know if they launched an attack, -I’d press the button. You would? – Well, wouldn’t I? Well, would you? – At the last resort, yes, I certainly would. – Well, I think I certainly would. Yes. And what is the last resort? – If the Russians invaded western Europe. You only have 12 hours to decide, so you’re saying the last resort is the… Read more »
Sir Humphrey was very wise, if only we had more like him 😀 2020 was sooner than you think in strategic terms when it takes decades to field a system.
There are two types of ballistic missiles. The first are those that the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine defends against, those with nuclear warhead. Against a massed attack from a nation such as Russia or China, there is essentially no effective defence once the missiles have been launched. The deterrence factor of having our own nuclear weapons is the theoretical defence. The other type is conventional ballistic missiles, the kind that have been fired in the Middle East. These have no nuclear capability, and are therefore not covered by the threat of MAD. If these were launched against British territories… Read more »
I think a reasonable GBAD system for the UK could be done for around £5 billion. Spread over 5 years, assuming starting after SDSR that’s just £1 billion a year. Layered defence 1) ground based Aster 1Bs then upgrade to NTs when ready. Fixed site with Sampson radar located at 6-7 locations. East of London. Portsmouth, Faslane, Fylingdales, Plymouth, 2-3 key RAF bases 2) sky sabre for defence against cruise missiles and UAVs out to medium range. 7-8 mobile batteries providing a mid layer 3) radar guided 40mm Bofors guns. On mobile truck platforms. 18-24 vehicles would be enough 4)… Read more »
The Aster is against what BM kind?
Unless Russia reaches the channel or France wants a war it is with lesser odds. UK needs a Arrow/Standard type of ABM.
aster is essentially for any air launched ballistic missiles or sub launched cruise missiles.
Yeah for ALBM it is justified, for cruise it is probably preferable CAMM.
It is an appalling state of affairs. Promoted by successive governments with a rosy-tinted view of the world, using it as an excuse to cut back on just about every aspect of state infrastructure, in the expectation that we would only ever get involved in police actions in the develeping world. It was started way back in a certain female prime minister’s time in office, and arguably before then (yes I was made redundant as a consequence) and perpetuated ever since by what followed.. Absolutely no account taken of the time it takes to rearm and build sustainable resupply capacity… Read more »
Agreed, it’s a serious gap in the UKs defences as ever more potentially hostile nations gain long range missile capabilities. But we should be just as much worried by unmanned one way attack systems. For example a freighter sitting in the English Channel could launch swarms of air and surface craft to take out every vessel in the Devonport and Portsmouth naval bases. For fun it could have also have laid dozens of mines in shipping lanes, and the UK’s mine countermeasure capability is now close to zero – just HMNB Clyde plus one operational Hunt in Bahrain. SDR 2025… Read more »
The threat of cheap airborne and sub surface drones means a reevaluation across the board. Because essentially the threat has both increased in difficulty and requires systems with greater capabilities ( ballistic missiles, stealthy missiles and planes as well as hypersonic weapons) at the same time the old fashioned risk of attack by huge numbers of individually low very low risk attrition capabilities has increased, as has the scope of where those capabilities can be launched from. In reality it’s now a potential risk that even a drug cartel/smugger could attack a constabulary vessel with a number of armed drones…and… Read more »
Surely London, the capital is defended. London should not be a primary place to protect. Industrial engineering centers build and ‘re build a Country. Finance and politics would not matter in this case, London is irrelevant, the DNC, or Greenwich? That said, I would quite happily see a five percent and more GDP defence budget. We ‘s all be changing our minds in seeing (very briefly) a blinding flash and big mushroom, but by then, it is all too late.
Even USAF doesn’t consider it a high probability otherwise they would have Patriot PAC3 etc at Lakenheath/Mildenhall to proctect F-15E / F-35 and 135’s/rivet joints etc
How about being neutral?? Or maybe getting Russia to be part of EU instead of an enemy. Russia and China are not the worst enemy. Drastic climate is far worst. And migrants are on track to be majority Islam by the end of the century according to demographic researchers. Imagine, all those billions in military spending could be used for health care. The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation could collapse and bring another ice age to Europe again. Then Europe will really need Russian gas. By the way, Economic 101 where the guns /butter comparison is still valid. Nato and military… Read more »
How is the weather in St Petersburg, by the way?