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 we need to intercept competent missiles and therefore going full Gucci on the solution? IRL most Russian missiles have been eminently shoot down able using most Hendy missile systems.
So in order to do something that actually works and is going to get deployed what push is go Aster-1NT but with a radar architecture that supports upgrade to 2NT?
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 value.
The threat to an Army “division” deployed to say the Baltics is myriad. With SRBM and drones now added to the mix. You can be sure the Requirements Managers (DE&S) for Sky Sabre, have asked MBDA to make sure it can counter these new threats. Whether either publish that Sky Sabre can now go thus remains to be seen. But Poland’s NAREW that has based on Sky Sabre has these threats listed. So I guess Mum’s the word for now!
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 0. But, for the really big ICBMs and suchlike, I think it’s the Block 2 missile that will be needed for that. As far as I’m aware, that’s still a drawing board design.
Compared to the Standard missile system, or even the Israeli system of systems, there is a much smaller record of engagements- although I think that’s as much to do with relative opportunity/necessity of use, and proliferation of the systems as much as anything else.
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 defined.
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 potential for BMD and the future Hunter Class (T26) CEAFAR/Aegis combat system combination to add a further 6 RAN ships with BMD capability to the 3 Hobarts.
Given the ADFs focus on rapid acquisition of new missile capabilities to increase the RANs lethality including NSM and Tomahawk (and production/assembly of both missiles in Australia at new Kongsberg and RTX factories) that have now been test fired from RAN platforms and are currently being introduced into service, a RAN BMD capability is now only a year or two away.
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 jet force
13) AEW force
14) ground based air defence
15) basing and maintaining facilities
Each of these capital programs are many billions each.. essentially the UK mortgaged its defences and now needs to accept its got to pay the mortgage off and that’s essentially 110 billion give or take.
Thats before you get to a massive investment in human resources and recuitment as well as uplifts in ongoing spending.
Simply put the taxpayer are not willing to foot a 110 billion capital bill and probably a further 10billion a year in ongoing costs. They need to told why it’s important by brave politicians who are willing to stand up and say we are heading for a world war that we have a possibility of losing and even if we win will destroy our nations economy for a generation… unless we can deter the enemy with massive investment in defence. This needs to be cross party no… playing the “well you will have to put up tax’s games” just all major parties coming out any saying what must be done and supporting the party in power to do it.
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 them to their faces you are able and willing to destroy them quickly. Because people like Putin and xi think they can win the long war…
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 MAD. It works because no defensive system is effective enough to neutralize a major attack – even if half of the incoming missiles are intercepted, the rest will destroy you.
There is a case for the UK to improve its defences against lower level threats to critical infrastructure using existing systems. They might just about be affordable – a comprehensive GBAD system wouldn’t.
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 strikes and still survive intact. Why are we trying to defend the undefendable?
Focus on achievably defending against a credible attack- like you say non-nuclear strikes against infrastructure for example.
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 Baltic Seas seems like a good start.
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 punch through it without it touching the sides…
But there is a new threat in town and that is medium to intermediate range conventional armed Ballistic missiles and the problem is the strategic deterrent is essentially useless at preventing the use of these. So the UK does need an expeditionary and home based defence to manage these. By there nature these will be less numerous and for medium range only have a single warhead so it’s both a needed and slightly more cost effective capability to defend against these.. but even these need to be very focused on assets that must be protected.
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 nation with air and ground based nuclear weapons may not be wise.. infact it would probably be better to fire a single or small number of “will” get through no matter what weapons at a clear target as a response.. maybe the west needs to start doing what everyone else is and investing in Conventionally armed IRBMs.. but if we are going to really have a conventional deterrence worth anything against Russia and China it needs to be very long range to hold the interiors of China and Russia at risk and it needs to be unstoppable.. 1000km range sub launched cruise missiles can be stopped.. 5000km ranged IRBMs less so, without massive investment.
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 ‘defenceless’ in the face of such threats is ridiculous. I hope that Colonels in general do have a grasp of how ‘defence’ actually works as a concept, which leads me to suspect that Crawford is deliberately stirring the pot.
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 UK mainland is only from ICBM’s or Medium range weapons like Oreshnik there is no missile defence system available. America has spent tens of billions on GBI and its doesn’t work very well against single warheads. It’s has zero chance against something like Oreshnik with MIRV’s.
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 nothing from the MoD.
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 far as I know, so that would have been reaching into spiral development territory….which is essential….nice if the Houthis to wake us up and provide some free targets…..
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 with allies for early warning and long range interceptors. So do we in France, for obvious reasons: The présence of HVT on home soil.
“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 should make the upgrade process I suspect a lot easier.
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 of Sea Viper are very, very good and can be leveraged.
Get on with the bits you can get on with.
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 prototype Block 1NT.
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 – 2M
David Sling – 700K
Patriot PAC3 – 3.8M
SM-6 – 3.9M
SM-3 – 9.6 – 27.9
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 wouldn’t, they don’t certainly know that, although you probably wouldn’t, there is no probability that you certainly would.
Jim Hacker: What?
————-
Sir Humphrey: Polaris is a ramshackle old system, the Soviets might easily develop a multi-layered ballistic missile defense system which could intercept Polaris.
Jim Hacker: By when?
Sir Humphrey: Well, in strategic terms, any day now.
Jim Hacker: By what year, precisely?
Sir Humphrey: 2020, but that’s sooner than you think.
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 first response?
-Am I?
You don’t need to worry. Why should
the Russians annex the whole of Europe?
They can’t even control Afghanistan.
No, if they try anything,
it will be salami tactics.
-Salami tactics?
– Slice by slice.
One small piece at a time.
So will you press the button
if they invade West Berlin?
-It all depends.
On what?
Scenario one.
Riots in West Berlin,
buildings in flames.
East German fire brigade crosses the border
to help. Would you press the button…?
The East German police come with them.
The button…?
Then some troops,
more troops just for riot control, they say.
And then the East German troops
are replaced by Russian troops. Button…?
Then the Russian troops don’t go.
They are invited to stay
to support civilian administration.
The civilian administration closes roads
and Tempelhof Airport.
Now you press the button?
-I need time to think about it.
You have 12 hours.
-Have I?
-You’re inventing this.
You are Prime Minister today.
The phone might ring now from NATO HQ.
(PHONE RINGS)
–Hello…? Yes. NATO HQ, Prime Minister.
–Can you address their annual conference in April?
– I thought I could. I’m not so sure now.
–Yes.
Scenario two.
The Russian army accidentally on purpose
cross the West German frontier.
Is that the last resort?
– No.
Right, scenario three.
Suppose the Russians have invaded
West Germany, Belgium, Holland, France?
Suppose their tanks and troops have reached
the English Channel and are poised to invade?
Is that the last resort?
– No.
Why not?
-We’d only fight a nuclear war to defend ourselves.
-That would be committing suicide!
So what is the last resort? Piccadilly?
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 and bases in the Falklands, Cyprus or Singapore, we would have almost no defence against them, and as they are not nuclear weapons, could not retaliate with a nuclear launch. The only system theoretically capable of downing these targets is the Sea Viper air defences found onboard the Type 45 destroyers, of which we have just six, and only 2-3 active at any one time. Furthermore, these ships carry just 32 of their anti-ballistic Aster-30 Block 0 (this will later be increased to 48 of the more reliable Aster-30 Block 1), which has a range of >120km. With a bit of quick maths, you’d need over 50 of these destroyers to cover all of the United Kingdom. Again, we have just six.
So no, the launch of a conventional ballistic missile would likely not trigger a nuclear response through MAD, nor would we be able to shoot it down.
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) direct energy weapons like dragon fire 36-42 vehicles for ultra close range point defence at low cost Vs drones/ UAVs being launched by operators inside of the UK eg terrorists, but cases or spies/ fifth columnist .
This wouldn’t provide whole of UK coverage but if mobile for mid and close range systems would be acceptable and provide an ability to intercept some munitions hurled our way
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.
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 especially with the over reliance on high tech weaponry at the expense of manpower. And the fools even disposed of the old stuff so there is next to nothing in reserve. Old kit is better than no kit. We have no effictive civil defence or reserves.
As with NHS, Police and many more anything that is delivered, managed or controlled requires man sorry people power. And guess what the bean counters cut first? Hold on Mr Enemy hang around for 5 or 10 years then we’ll be ready to repel your attack as long as you give us that notice, it wouldn’t be cricket if you didn’t.
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 is increasingly looking like being a repeat of SDSR 2010 – immediate defence cuts and “temporary” capability gaps in key areas (amphibious warfare, air defence, ISR, replenishment at sea) but with the promise of lots of jam in ten years time (aka the “10 year rule”). Even the Red Arrows (Cameron decided to save them in 2010, at a cost of £9 million a year) may be disbanded after the 2025 season as their 40+ year-old Hawk aircraft are falling apart and there is no money for replacements.
I’m sure that Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, et al have all got the Treasury memo – no war please as we can’t afford to defend the UK at the moment.
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 a cartel potentially would. But a more significant enemy as you say could possibly throw a large scale low tec attrition attack at any vessel or base.
It means lower end air defence systems need to now be more ubiquitous as well as able to manage mass and numbers..while at the Same time the high end air defence systems need to be able to manage a wider set potential capabilities as well as attacks on a wider set of targets.
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