The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is currently evaluating the effectiveness of the nation’s air defence systems, specifically their capacity to protect critical infrastructure.
This information was provided by Luke Pollard, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, in response to a question from Andrew Rosindell, Conservative MP for Romford.
Rosindell asked about the recent assessments of the UK’s air defence systems.
Pollard outlined the MOD’s ongoing review, stating, “The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is reviewing its air defence capabilities and contribution to wider national defence as part of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) and is in close collaboration with other Government Departments to help develop the future proposition.”
Pollard highlighted the range of existing capabilities the UK employs to counter air and missile threats. “The UK currently has a wide range of capabilities to counter the Air and Missile threat facing us. This includes but is not limited to: Typhoon aircraft on Quick Reaction Alert readiness, Type 45 destroyers, short and medium range ground-based air defence, and numerous critical supporting elements.”
He further mentioned the MOD’s commitment to continuous improvement, noting, “The MOD constantly reviews its policies and capabilities in line with developing threats. The air and missile threat is proliferating and Defence will ensure that this changing threat picture is factored into the SDR work.”
The MOD recently announced a comprehensive framework for missile defence research and development, titled Science and Technology Oriented Research and Development in Missile Defence (STORM).
The contract will manage the delivery of research covering all activities to counter ballistic missiles and advanced threats, including but not limited to simple non-separating threats, complex separating threats, Manoeuvring Re-Entry Vehicles (MaRVs), Multiple Independently Targetable Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs), Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs), Hypersonic Cruise Missiles (HCM), and hybrid threats.
The research required will cover analysis, experimentation, trials, and technology/system development across all pillars of missile defence:
- Counter-proliferation: Measures to minimise the spread of missile technology.
- Deterrence: Measures to discourage the use of missile threats.
- Counterforce: Actions to reduce the quantity of missiles and supporting equipment available to an aggressor during a conflict.
- Active defence: Strategies to detect, track, intercept, and disable or destroy missiles in flight.
- Passive defence: Measures to mitigate and recover from the effects of missile impacts.
The STORM framework, with an estimated budget of £110 million to £251 million, addresses a broad spectrum of missile defence activities. According to the MoD, the contract will “manage delivery of research covering all activities to counter ballistic missiles and advanced threats including but not limited to simple non-separating threats, complex separating threats, Manoeuvring Re-Entry Vehicles (MaRVs) and Multiple Independently Targetable Re-Entry Vehicles (MIRVs), Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs), Hypersonic Cruise Missiles (HCM) and hybrid threats which share characteristics with BM, HGV and/or HCM.”
The MoD outlines the historical and ongoing challenges posed by ballistic missiles: “Since the first V2 attack on London in 1944, ballistic missiles have posed a near constant threat to the UK, its overseas interests, and forces. Adversaries continue to invest in and proliferate increasingly advanced ballistic and manoeuvrable threat systems to challenge our freedom of action.”
The MoD specifies the pillars of missile defence research under the STORM framework as follows:
- “Counter-Proliferation: Measures to minimise the spread of missile technology.”
- “Deterrence: Measures to discourage the use of missile threats.”
- “Counterforce: Actions to reduce the quantity of missiles and supporting equipment available to an aggressor during a conflict.”
- “Active Defence: Strategies to detect, track, intercept, and disable or destroy missiles in flight.”
- “Passive Defence: Measures to mitigate and recover from the effects of missile impacts.”
The UK Missile Defence Centre (MDC), a unique government-industry partnership within the MoD Head Office, will spearhead the STORM framework. The MDC is responsible for all UK missile defence Research & Development (R&D) and provides support to decision-makers on all aspects of missile defence. The MDC was established to “provide a pipeline of funding to sustain SQEP (Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel) in relevant UK industry sectors.”
The MoD highlights the strategic importance of the STORM framework: “The Missile Defence R&D Category Strategy, approved in May 2023, recommended creation of a new route to market bringing together core research and technology maturation projects into a single contract, enhancing research outcomes and supply chain efficiency.”
The selected contractor will work closely with the MDC to “design and manage a contract pipeline to deliver the Missile Defence R&D category’s research requirements.” This includes large, multi-year research technology maturation projects, multinational and multi-supplier trials, and short-term rapid analysis. The coordination function is envisaged to be co-located with the Missile Defence Centre in Farnborough.
The notice further details that “the research required will cover analysis, experimentation, trials and technology/system development across all pillars of missile defence.”
The STORM framework is part of the 2020 MOD Science & Technology (S&T) Strategy, which aims to “sustain, exploit, and develop UK industrial and academic expertise to continue to develop next-generation and generation-after-next technologies applicable to Integrated Air and Missile Defence.”
At the UK Defence Journal, we aim to deliver accurate and timely news on defence matters. We rely on the support of readers like you to maintain our independence and high-quality journalism. Please consider making a one-off donation to help us continue our work. Click here to donate. Thank you for your support!
The war in ukraine has shown how critical a good air defense is. The Type 42 seem to spend a lot of time in refits and the Typhoons – well there is just not enough of those.
The price tag however will be steep.
You mean Type 45 Daring Class. The Type 42 were retired so definitely would not be available!
Started with treble the sky ceptor systems so we have somewhere in the range if 50 to cover military and strategic sites, and from there get the ER version of CAMM, and the. You can look at assuming something like ITIS T etc on top. More t45 yes but that is 5-10 years down the line
That comment from the minister is a bit of a smokescreen.
Typhoon does not give point defence of key sites.
SHORAD and MRAD are army assets for defence of the army IN THE FIELD, not for home defence.
SHORAD Starstreak is not ideal, and while Sabre could be deployed and has been to cover specific UK events, it leaves the army without.
T45 should be with our capital vessels.
And ” numerous critical supporting elements” which I assume referrs to the established ASCS, so the CRC,RRH, and supporting C3 network, does not in itself shoot down threats.
NATO and the RAF ideally will destroy approaching missiles and aircraft up threat, so north of Norway, and the rest over the NATO nations between us and Russia.
That still leaves submarines ( if they survive that long ) and western attacks.
While I agree the threat of minimal, the fact the Russians prioritise this means, for me, that there should be improvements in this area and some GBAD assets procured.
Plus an ABM system.
One thing Ukraine has shown is that if your enemy can hit your cities but you can’t really hit theirs, they will continue to attack. Boosting defences is one way to reduce vulnerability; another is to make sure you can hit back. So investing in longer range conventional missiles that can hit targets deep inside Russia might be more effective than any defensive system.
This is good point . We can assume most nations who attack us will be doing so from a long distance exactly as u suggest . If we can’t punch back they will keep hitting us. Nukes is all very well but they can’t really be used in many circumstances as they are perceived overkill. Jet fighters is one option for long distance attack but long range conventional missiles and drones seem a very efficient method to launch assaults
Hi Daniele
The last aircraft that we had that could intercept Russian threats over the Baltic was the Tornado ADV. Years of defence cuts and over reliance on our NATO allies have left the UK bereft of AD. What happened to the old UKADGE assets? Is there anything left thats worth re-activating?
I don’t see why Typhoon can’t. I don’t think it has shorter range.
It can midair refuel so can extend the range as far as it needs to.
Hi my friend.
Most is actually still around, mate.
The Bloodhound SAM chain, from Suffolk to the Humber, has gone.
The 2 Rapier Sqns at Leuchars and Lossi are gone.
The CRCs in R3 bunkers that were stood down around 2004, so Buchan, Neatishead, and the reserve at Ash are, AFAIK, still there, just vacant, so presumably possible to re-activate. The Ash one is a commercial Data Centre now.
The top part of the network, the NASOC, or NADOC, at Naphill is still there, though its standby at Bentley Priory has been demolished.
The wider radar and c3 network still exists.
It’s the planes now lacking and lack of GBAD, at least at those critical places to protect the AD assets, like Lossi and Coningsby.
RAF Leuchars has all the facilities for QRA like it had before and is now an army Barracks.
Typhoon can do that Job just fine. And is much more affective than the Tornado F3 was. And the F3 was a very effective interceptor, especially in it’s last 10 years of service.
I agree, no cap badges involved or pilot seats filled so there is no interest from the RAF or Army, navy is the only service that’s taken air defence seriously and now it’s been rewarded by being given the job of the Army and air force to defend the UK with the few guided missile destroyers we have. If the RAF or Army were serious they would simply recommend we purchase one of the numerous OTC solutions instead of pissing £200+ up the wall on yet another design study
SAMP/T
THAAD
ARROW
Patriot
All could be bought tomorrow.
The RAF has even convinced the government to spend £750 million on an ABM radar and doesn’t have even a plan for an ABM missile.
Shocking
Agreed. In this situation, sod the sovereign R%D just bloody well buy something that is appropriate.
What was the rationale for project LEWIS and the radar, given that the SSPAR at Fylingdales exists?
Personally I would join the French and Italians on aster 30/sampt/ng, we already have skin in that game with Aster and essentially can use the same missile stocks as the T45 for a bit of efficiency…we have the new investment in gosport for work on the missiles as well…
You have to wonder if they could also link up the MISC to an Aster battery to protect the south coast.
MISC?
Marine integration and support centre…it’s that great big and very high “full” type 45 sensor set up sitting above Portsmouth….its a sort of plug and play ground based type 45..without weapons.
Ah Portsdown. I keep calling it LBTS, Land Based Test Site.
Another name change.
I have no idea what project LEWIS is about given Fylingdales is already there and we don’t have an ABM missile.
But the MOD was enamoured with telling us how it will provide defence for the UK. It will let us track exactly where a missile is going to land no doubt
Normally I would argue for a UK IP-owned and manufactured solution. However, the need is now so urgent – especially from a “rogue” or “UK made an example of” attack – something has to be put in place quickly that covers the whole of the UK. i.e. Anti- ICBM, shorter range BM, sub-launched long-range sea-skimming cruise missile, and drone warms.
UK needs to extractum digitum (I think that’s how you spell it)
Perhaps the real purpose was to give sufficient warning for senior politicians to head to their bunkers!
Well yes, there is that. Though if it’s only 4 minutes that limits things.
The old idea was central government would have moved to Corsham and the varied RSGs before it kicks off.
Now? Beyond DCMC It’s classified.
The RAF is not serious about AD? What are the QRA Typhoons for then? The RAF is charged with preventing penetration of UK airspace and approaches by hostile aircraft.
The army is equipped with SHORAD and medium range AD weapons, the latter being brand new and cutting edge…for the defence of the deployed field force.
How good are typhoon’s at intercepting ballistic missiles? Can you name a single RAF system able to intercept ballistic missiles?
Answers on a post card please
Don’t need a postcard Jim.
“Pollard highlighted the range of existing capabilities the UK employs to counter air and missile threats. “The UK currently has a wide range of capabilities to counter the Air and Missile threat facing us. This includes but is not limited to: Typhoon aircraft on Quick Reaction Alert readiness…”
Typhoons are air superiority fighters so are good at countering air threats, meaning threats from enemy aircraft. The RAF is very serious about countering that threat, and that was what I said.
Of course a Typhoon is not going to counter a ballistic missile. That rather is the point of the article. So Britain is looking at options, which includes for the long-term the R&D under the Project STORM R&D programme.
You idiot
Name an RAF system that has ever been capable of intercepting a ballistic missile…I will add a caveat…onethat doesn’t use a bucket of sunshine strapped to the end of it
Agreed, at short to medium notice we will found with our pants down, despite the numerous warnings around the planet
Reactivate the RAF regiment air defence sqns and equip with SAMP/T and Aster 30 B1 for commonality with RN.
That would seem logical.
Either money is provided for it or something else goes to pay.
Isn’t Aster ER/ABM being developed, by the French & Italians at least? We could alternatively look at standard ABM, Patriot or Israel’s Iron dome.
We’ve developed the Block 0 mod 1 by ourselves for our own ABM, but I think Block 1 is a joint thing (can’t remember who’s in it).
They’re upgrades to the active radar and targeting software so that it can hit IRBM’s consistently enough.
I told you that the Labour Defence were pants, did I not?
Yes, which always confuses me, as you’ve spent the last several years defending them whenever I did a comparison with the Tories. We even had rows about it.
So, leaves me a tad confused to say the least that you’ve now come full circle.
Not quite, I’ve defended Labour, but Healy (sp) is/was a light-weight.
As to the Cons, wel they’re just well named 😉
They’ve only been there 5 minutes! Lets see what happens in the next few months, and hope Putin doesn’t go all out!
Why do you think Healey is or was a lightweight,?
Remember our good old tic toc friend? He gave a statement to the House that was disingenuous to say the least, Healey let it slide and welocomed the statement.
The Labour Defence team are pants; their statement today just reaffirms my view.
Hi DB, I didn’t catch Ben Wallace’s statement to the House or Healey’s response. I guess this wasn’t in the last 2 or 3 days as Healey has been with Lammy in Qatar, Lebanon and Israel. So when was it?
The last thing I have on Wallace talking about Defence was an column he wrote for the Mail On-line on 27th July.
Could you summarise what Wallace said and what Healey replied?
To be fair to them, I doubt this was a plan dreamt up by them in the last 3 weeks- this has surely got to be a legacy of the conservative government.
Not saying they’ll be wonderful, just looking to assign blame/praise where it belongs!
Nah! I wouldn’t credit the Cons with the plan.
COGS might have been pushing and a back of of fag packet calc suggests we are heading for stormy weather by 2027 and woefully unprepared.
However, Labour have had 14 years to prepare for this and telling us T45 is in the fight is just laughable.
With Reeves rightly in control, MoD Front Bench will really have to up their game from false beginner (you’ve been 14 years) to Grandmaster to take on Reeves.
And we all know, that’s not going to happen.
I for one am impressed that a new Government is finally seriously addressing the AD of the UK against a wide range of aerial threats…. and within weeks of taking office.
What is pants about that?
Sir. Read the comments. 6 T45 are not adequate, heavens, how many can actually put to sea?
Should Labour have said, “within budget constraints, we will seek to recruit more personnel and give a follow on order for T45 OR T26 AAD platform,” I would have been impressed.
Should Labour have said, “within budget constraints, seek to acquire more medium AD RRA Batteries and personnel, to be deployed around the UK,” I would have been impressed
Should Labour have said…you’ve got the idea, right?
They didn’t. They waffled and honestly, do you think people feel re-assured by such bollards?
Good night Sir.
They are not really going to invest in a new integrated air defence system without actually looking at what is needed…maybe cut them more than 3 weeks slack.
Jonathan. I have been Labour my whole life, there are things that Labour can achieve, however, the Labour front bench Defence team are not the best and could I dare you to deny and we have had spin and waffle from their counterparts for 14 years.
The Armed Forces deserve better. More personnel, better accommodation and far more platforms able to defend this Country; we lack in all three areas.
Waffling bollards that can easily be disassembled is quite unhelpful and reminds me of the last 14 years of con mis-rule.
I won’t cut them any slack, they are a shower and we deserve far better than bullsh!t releases.
Rant over.
Yes, I re-read the article. The article was not about how many Type 45s we have, how many we can put to sea or how many we should have. Even if it was, Pollard could not say that we are to buy more T45 or T26 AAD platforms this side of a SDR. Nor could he have said that we will seek to acquire more medium AD batteries for the Royal Artillery – certainly not this side of a SDR.
The question asked by Andrew Rosindell MP was about the recent assessments of the UK’s air defence systems. Pollard correctly replied that the work was ongoing within MoD.
Pollard then stated that current capabilities to counter the Air and Missile threat include:
1.Typhoon aircraft on QRA (true statement – we always have 4 aircraft on QRA at two bases),
2.Type 45 destroyers (true statement – we have them – they have a very good AD capability but we both know they are only six and some may have unserviceable AD capability – would you expect him to spell out all the possible negatives?).
3.Army short and medium range GBAD (true statement, but its intended role is AD of a deployed army unit or formation, however if ordered to defend UK infrastructure, they would do it. Of cpurse, they would – the army is flexible that way!).
He then announced all the considerable R&D effort ongoing under the Project STORM title. Very encouraging, and it is clearly a ‘first’.
I don’t see that Pollard, mis-spoke, lied or waffled – he was factually correct. I have never known the AD of the UK (its military and naval bases, cities, seat of Government, critical infrastructure) to be taken seriously until now. I am relieved and somewhat impressed at belated action.
The time to be critical of HMG is not now because our national AD is lacking and Pollard did not major on that in his statement – blame instead the last Governments over many decades, not the one that is not even a month into office. Be critical too if SDR (to be published in first half of 2025) does not undertake to order more AD assets to be held by each service and if Project STORM fails to deliver high-tech AD kit in the longer term.
Unfortunately this is where not ordering adequate type45s bites…since most of our critical infrastructure is not that far from the coast and ever attack will come from the sea, deployed type 45s would be the best answer for an integrated air defence system…..but with six as you say they are needed as capital ship escorts.
There should be an interim option for acquiring 2-3 A140/T31 AAW versions in short time frame. Free up the T45s for CSG duties.
Like to see the Hawk trainers wired for ASRAAM as a stop gap for counter drone, helo and maybe other capabilities. I think Robert told me that that current model aircraft aren’t?
The Hawk T2 can only simulate weapons carage and release for training new pilots. But with funding, anything is possible. Personally. Any extra funding made available I’d rather see spent on Typhoon/F35B.
Used to be a thing, I think. Hawk with Sidewinder and an F3 doing the target ID and target designation over voice primary.
Sensible as always mate 👍
Another argument for some tranche 4 Typhoon’s. More Sky Sabre to cover the major RAF stations seems logical too.
Doubt anything will come of this beyond the usual waffle about partnerships and frameworks.
Agreed 👍
What’s sky sabre going to do against ballistic and hypersonic attack ???? Nothing is the answer . It’s a poor man’s Aster
. “The UK currently has a wide range of capabilities to counter the Air and Missile threat facing us. This includes but is not limited to: Typhoon aircraft on Quick Reaction Alert readiness, Type 45 destroyers, short and medium range ground-based air defence, and numerous critical supporting elements.”
That deserves a sad laugh.
Shame on us for knowing the realities.😕
Made me laugh far too much. A seriously pathetic statement. So they think 4x Typhoons, 1x T45 and a half-dozen mobile units can cover the U.K. Couldn’t even cover parliament in London. All U.K. RN and RAF bases have no AD. UK desperately needs to sort out its AD capability and capacity.
And before any comments, if you think more than one T45 is one U.K. AD duties at any one time you are seriously mistaken. T45s are mostly on escort duty or elsewhere in the Med/Gulf/Pacific.
T45s are mostly in maintenance!
Pollard didn’t say that ‘4x Typhoons, 1x T45 and a half-dozen mobile units can cover the U.K’.
He said that MoD is doing an ongoing AD review, that MoD is doing a SDR and that Project STORM is doing some very useful R&D work.
I am more hopeful now than I have been in the last 50 years that AD of the UK is being seriously looked at.
Well it’s true in that we do have a wide range of capabilities…it’s just they are all inadequate in some way to do the job…..sometimes you can tell the truth and yet at the same time not tell the truth….
In reality people on this forum will roll their eyes…but most of the public would not be receptive to being told that Russia could knock chunks out of our critical infrastructure if they really wanted to…and what actually prevents that is our own ability to knock out the same chunks back…what most people want is to be told it’s all right, not the brutal facts…and that’s what our political classes give them…
We have relied on our nuclear deterrent to stop Russia from thinking about taking chunks out of us, plus the wider NATO capability conventional and nuclear. And so far, it has worked. Maybe not for Ukraine. But Putin hasn’t stepped foot on NATO soil.
Indeed, there is a brutal truth in that it’s far more costly to defend against attacks than it is to undertake attacks.and in the end will cost far more if you are attacked than you would ever spend on your armed forces…..hence the absolute need to spend plenty of money on deterrence and the ability to utterly hammer any potential enemy into the ground even if your at peace.
Yes, looking at what’s happening in Ukraine in addition to ABM defence a conventional deterrent would be a good idea.
Quote from HMG web site following recent Healey – Pistorius meeting.
“Deep Precision Strike:The Ministries of Defence of Germany and the United Kingdom will, together with partners, undertake a long-term, comprehensive cooperation in the field of long-range capabilities”.
He has to say that, and it happens to be true. Only we, rather then the general public, know that it is grossly inadequate. That is why we are having a SDR and doing Project STORM.
The ‘Active’ and ‘Passive’ Defence components are perhaps the ones exercising most of our concerns as the other components are more politico-diplomatic. I just hope they make their minds up quickly and provide adequate funds in time to make a difference. Even if we as UK are not under direct threat of invasion our position as a static and large aircraft ‘carrier’ controlling access to the Arctic and North Atlantic and a forward base is critical. Can we even defend our existing military bases and logistic hubs, let alone the resupply manufacturing capability?
In world only Israel probably can, but UK situation is worse than most. No military airbase is protected by deployed SAM missiles.
Don’t we know it! Rhetorical question!!
How many US airbases are defended by deployed missiles?
Probably none, but USA is far away from everything.
I’ll let RAF Mildenhall know the good news, shall I?
😉
Other than Alaska, CONUS is a long way from any realistic Russian/Chinese threat.
they keep national guard F-15s based on the coasts and alaska af QRF for cruise missiles and the like, and then they have GBAD in alaska and california for limited ICBM defense. they also have an AEGIS ashore in hawaii which is officially a test site but no reason it couldn’t be turned into an active site- they have AEGIS ashore in romania and poland as well. speaking of AEGIS ashore that would make a lot of sense for the UK. that system with the excellent SM-3 for ballistic missile defense which would be able to cover the entire UK. you can also plug SM-6 into the system which would cover a large swath of the UK from lower flying targets…
Its interesting you mention the Americans. Because, they have a lot of assets in the UK. But they are not screaming for more AD. Probably because they also know the realistic threat is very low.
Half a dozen C5 and within a day both bases could be ringed with AD. They have the capability to do that, we do not.
How do you know the don’t already have it ????
To be honest probably one of the most worrying areas around air defence is the US western pacific fleet bases…china has something like 2000 short and medium range balistic missiles and 500 intermediate range ballistic missiles and it doubles on a regular basis..as well as the same again in cruise missiles..infact the U.S. is burning 1.7billion on an integrated air defence system for Guam that will include land based aegis, THAAD and Patriot..all to be ready by 2027 ( the year china has said it will be ready to invade Taiwan)…the problem is a lot of senior military leaders are saying it will be no way adequate against the many hundreds of ballistic and cruise missiles they believe china will throw at Guam.
“Having six missiles on a launcher and having about a 45 minute reload time—you’re not going to be survivable in a Guam defensive situation “ Army Brig. Gen. Frank Lozano
It’s important to note here that the US is still trying to figure out the most effective architecture of their Guam defence and the quote you used was referring specifically to the short range US army IFPC inc 2. platform. IMO it still is very unlikely that China would attempt an invasion any time soon as they still have to figure out how they would get their invasion fleet across the Taiwan strait without it being devasted by the US military.
The issue still remains that there is no UK missile interceptor with the range to cover enough bases from a single point.
Unless we want to buy enough Land Ceptor systems to leave a CAMM fire group at every air and logistics base or , the only solution will be to divide the country into zones that can be protected by a single site of either a fixed CAMM-MR system or a sort of “Land Viper” firing ASTER.
I’m imagining a series of areas not necessarily overlapping e.g. “London and surrounds”, “Midlands with Brize Norton”, “South with Portsmouth and Odiham”
We will realistically be unable to cover an area larger than a few adjacent counties with existing missiles and so we need a wider range of missile sites.
Mobile ones, that can move to where the threat is considered most acute.
Are we able to predict the threat axis accurately enough and with enough time to prevent e.g. LACM and UAV strikes with only partial coverage?
The threat of an attack using containerised weapons from one of Russia’s “Ghost fleet” has been discussed here before and we have no way of predicting where something like that could come from, unlike the BM threat.
I wouldn’t like to be in the missile battery hoofing it up the M6 at 70mph in rush hour because they were at Brize Norton and the drone turned out to be heading towards Liverpool.
More numerous static systems are the way to go IMO. They can be tailored to the importance of the site in question and tend to react more quickly.
Hi mate.
Yep, true. I was thinking of your regional point and a mobile unit for each. So the South one would not need to race north.
Also costs a factor, more numerous static vs smaller number of mobile?
It’s all fantasy fleets for now as I doubt MoD do anything.
Container attacks are a good point.
Hi DM
This will almost certainly get tied in with CAMM-MR and hence the main benefits will be for the Army.
I suppose a mobile battery would work for each region. The main advantage to that would be in training as an extra site is not needed for practising and tests like Portsdown for T45.
I would probably back that up with fixed positions of something like BAE’s new Tridon or that Terrahawk thing we gave to Ukraine (all tied in with a Giraffe 1X on a pole for early warning), to protect things like airfield hangars or dockyards.
Those are mostly automatic but probably need a person or two to stare at screens etc and as the man in the loop.
I daresay having one on top of the MoD main building would be welcomed as well.
Cor now you’re talking.
Would also add that given mobile batteries are forced to use smaller radars, fixed early warning sites should be used looking out over likely channels of attack.
I mean something like a Sampson on top of a very tall pole (power cable mast-esque) on top of a very tall hill by the sea.
One in Cornwall looking over Western Approaches, one on the East coast looking over North Sea and two in Scotland to scan the North Atlantic.
These would look down over the horizon hundreds of miles and search airspace for incoming non ATC controlled objects in order to vector in QRA and alert GBAD.
Masts would themselves be protected by fixed gun based SHORAD similarly to airbases.
Looks like you’ve got it all covered mate!
I thought Sampson was heavy? On a pole?
I know, I’m being picky. Stick it on a concrete plinth like the backbone tower at Stokenchurch. If you’re ever in the M40 you’ll see it, built to resist nuclear blast.
I imagined some sort of trusswork structure like a power pylon, sitting on top of a bunker containing cooling systems. Coolant lines run up the pole inside a thick pipe for protection against drones, and the radar is on top of a platform.
I imagine the weight and forces a power pylon has to bear in strong winds etc. are quite considerable and there is always room to increase the size of the beams if found not to be weak enough.
I wonder if BAE could use single panel prototypes of whatever radar they undoubtedly have in the works for T83 (so looking a bit like the rotating SPY6) and the whole system becomes part of FADS?
Or would that result in too much Inter-service shenanigans?
Would it need to rotate? I’d be tempted to go the other way.
From the sort of tower that you and Daniele are discussing I can’t imagine that weight would be a huge issue given that solid ground doesn’t have the same top-weight/stability issues that a ship has so perhaps fixed panels might simplify things a bit (they’d definitely simplify the software).
Personally I would be trying to go with 4 x fixed panels on each tower rather than the current twin back-to-back rotating setup simply to eliminate some moving parts (points of failure) and give the software less work to do to re-acquire/re-validate a track twice every revolution after neither panel has had visibility on a particular bearing for a part of the rotational cycle.
Using the justification of how critical such a system would be, and in that context how maximising reliability would be important in that case, I think it would be worth the cost of making the necessary software mods to support a quad-fixed-panel setup and the extra cost of 2 more panels in return for optimising tracking performance and not having motors and gears to maintain, plus the routing of the cabling and cooling to the panels becomes much simpler since that doesn’t need to pass through a rotating element. Some of that extra cost of panels and software mods would also be offset by cost savings from not needing the rotation mechanism and the simpler routing of the cabling and cooling to the panels.
On the towers, have a quick search for what SpaceX are doing with constructing its new Starship launch tower in Boca Chica Texas right now. It is about 150 metres tall, built in 9 sections, and they are stacking those sections right now. It is going up incredibly quickly and is being built in a hurricane area with arms designed to lift a 70 metre tall rocket onto the launch stand so something like that would definitely be structurally sound enough to support a 4-panel Sampson installation. It’s pretty cool how quickly and efficiently SpaceX is building infrastructure at Boca Chica.
In that case with a 4-panel setup the project would be much more relevant to T83 and whatever radar we use for the volume search there.
I hadn’t considered the problems with rotation re coolant and programming. How much does that affect the effectiveness of systems like Sampson? I assume you are “In the industry”, unlike me.
4 panels would also be advantageous in the event of a swarm style attack without directionality so there are targets to be tracked in all directions.
I’ve had a look at the Starship tower, that’s exactly the sort of thing I meant (admittedly not 150m tall, though worth considering as going from 100 to 200m ASL pushes the horizon out 15km to 50).
Can be built quickly in situ from prefab pieces, can be any height you want and doesn’t require a huge land area for cable supports.
Thanks for the info Julian.
I don’t remember us interacting before on here, nice to meet new people!
Just re read this and had to rack my brains as to what you were referring two as I travel up the M40 several times a year to visit relatives.
Is that the big cell tower/ water tower on the right heading North?
Yes mate. On right, before you go into the cutting with the great views of Oxfordshire beyond. It was originally a backbone tower, a microwave line of sight comms system that woukd often dog leg around cities to avoid blast.
Most were not built this way. The other, most obvious one is the BT Tower, originally the PO Tower.
MoD sites had many of these towers, and some are still in place. It was easy to intercept, so was supplemented by the Boxer Uniter network of fibre optic lines and Uniter bunkers.
Sorry, going off at tangents.
Tangents are never a problem and thanks for the extra detail DM
Has that sort of system becomes obsolete with SATCOM systems?
Are there more or were they demolished?
I’m on this site to learn and pick up knowledge, so always interested in random tidbits that pop up in conversation.
P.s Imagine a SAMPSON on top of the BT towere, Ha!
Microwave can be intercepted.
Google “Capenhurst tower” as an example.
Very secure fibre optic landlines are all used by the military, buried so harder to pinpoint and destroy.
Many bases still appear to have the towers but whats on them is beyond my knowledge.
Many of the Uniter bunkers, which can be seen as as like a telephone exchange, are still on MoD sites even though Uniter Boxer was supplemented by other systems.
More Backbone towers like BT Tower and Stokenchurch? Hmmm, I think there is one in Leeds but forget it’s name.
For a solid, if outdated base for this stuff I recommend 2 books “beneath the city steets” by Peter Laurie and “War Plan UK” by Duncan Campbell.
Sampson on top of BT Tower?! Hillarious! 😆
You know for many years it did not officially exist?
There is no CAMM-MR not even a prototype or a design. It is CAMM and/or CAMM-ER.
It’s a project and MBDA are still marketing it at shows, so I include it in future fantasy ideas.
Realistically none of these projects are going to show fruit before that comes through, so it’s worth considering.
I could be wrong but I think CAMM-MR is what the Italian’s are fielding on the land and in their Sea based Albatross system.
Not a million miles from the Dowding Model, 9 through 14 Group. It worked last time…
Yes, though we substitute missile batteries for airfields and EW radar sites for Chain home.
At least we don’t have to focus on the Channel coast as much this time…
9 through 14?
10 through 13.
Which were 9 and 14 groups?
I’m only aware of 10 west, 11 S East, 12 Midlands and Lincolnshire, 13 Ooop north.
No, you’re quite right. At the BoB time it was only split into 4.
9 was formed over West Midlands, north west and north wales, 10 was the south west and south wales and 14 was run out of the Drumrossie Hotel in Inverness to cover Scotland But that was all from late 1940/ early 41 I think. As the force got bigger so did the C&C
Fascinating, I’d not heard of 9 and 14.
Thank you.
Morning SB, how about some 20’/40′ open top, two door containerised CAMM, with reloadable pallets of CAMM that can fit on trucks, rail, barges, ships/drone ships at short notice?
AHH the mythical containerised CAMM that’s doesn’t (and never will because a container on a lorry would be larger than the actual 8 cell CAMM fire module) exist. Always makes the rounds on this site when someone mentions AD.
It maybe be mythical but there’re actual drawings of something like it for the BAE Adaptable Frigate and also previously the Venator concept, a 16 cell I think. I did mention “open top” for the CAMM (3m) height and there are high cube containers available too. I think Gunbuster or DaveyB mentioned that there was a containerised CAMM base station design proposed a while ago. I’ve never seen that myself but it seems to have been looked at. Trucks with containers should easily be able to handle 8-16 cells. The US has got truck launched twin TLAM Typhon happening but that’s an extreme example.
I think we have to think on a bigger scale than CAMM for this one.
We will need Aster, not only for the BMD and counter-hypersonics function but also to have the range for regional GBAD centres.
Now, if someone were to invent a containerised SAMP/T…
Hi SB, SAMP/T has eight per truck launcher that I’ve seen with the Singapore defence force so I assume Italy/France would be the same. Not sure you’d get many Aster in a 20’/40′ container if you can imagine turning a Sylver silo on its side…but there are those “Adjustable Deck Launchers”…that a
may or mayn’t be good for SAM launches.
Does the UK then need 1-2 even 3 Aegis ashore type platforms strategically placed around the UK? I think Fylingdales has no defences or offensive abilities but can it be upgraded to support that?
Fylingdales reportedly has a bunker underneath and plenty of MDP regards the defensive side. That’s it. Once it has reported on incoming IRBMs for us and ICBMS for NORAD so retaliation can commence it has done its job. Whether it could survive that long to do that is an open question.
Who realistically would actually want to survive underground though ? Putin reckons that just 3 Satin Bombs ( 50 plus MGT’s) would wipe out most life in the UK.
As a sort of part time prepper, I worry about the amount of stuff I hoard and it’s shelf life but the greatest fear is of those who would want to take advantage of your prepping. Every underground shelter needs access to above ground stuff eventually and every above ground survivor will want access to your stores and safe environment.
Find your Air duct and block it and you die a suffocating death and even if that doesn’t happen, you still have to emerge at some point.
Radiation will be the killer.
At this point in time, I’m happy to say I have at least 2 years worth of Bog Rolls, Toothpaste, Shampoo, Razors, Matches, Candles, Soap, Deodorant, BP pills, Batteries, Plasters, Listerine total care, Dettol, Cotton buds, Lentils, Basmati rice, 500ml Butane Gas cartridges, Wet wipes, Bleach, Degu food, and enough spices to create at least 4 years of Indian Curries.
I just hope Putin doesn’t bomb my tent !
😆! Depends where you pitch it mate.
I suggest mid Wales away from targets for your tent, don’t forget a rifle.
On the bunkers, no bunker survives a direct hit. They exist to buy time to execute their function. That assumes Russian missiles have that accuracy.
There may be of course covert bunkers not acknowledged by HMG. I’m a believer in the possibility of these, having looked info it for many years. I was for a time a member of Sub Brit. But they were too goody two shoes for me and avoided the current stuff, which is my interest, not old ww2 shelters and cold war ROC Posts.
A covert location not IDd by an enemy can not be targeted.
The 3 Tzar Bombs and their replacements would pretty much take care of the entire UK though, take a look at the 50 Megaton damage and fallout coverage and predicted carnage. Being underground will just be a time prolonging experience. If Putin went all Mental, i’ll bet that the UK would be a total wasteland not worth living for. Sub Brit’s have delusions that are based upon WW2 levels of destructive power. I have been on many such sites, i’d be happy to share my hoard with you just to be able to converse in such a convivial manner though as long as you don’t snore or take a liking tom single malt !
Tzar Bomba? I don’t think they field those.
I’m not aware of any Russian IRBM ICBM with a 50 MT warhead.
I still maintain some bunkers not identified are survivable.
Bunkers are resistant to fallout and EMP with faraday cages. How long you’d last in one re food, and even if you’d want to, is another question.
Fact is, Iran, N Korea, China, the US, all still maintain and build underground facilities for a reason. Not all incoming will be nuclear.
It’s the Degu food mate! Lol
They don’t as far as I know but the 50MT figure has been repeated by certain Russian mouth pieces over the years in regards to wiping out this small Island. I watched an interesting article about Sweden’s shelters which are amazingly well equipped and provisioned but, they only have a two month capability, after that, they have to think about getting out again.
Degu’s have a rather basic food requirement but I like to chuck in a few Peanuts sunflower seeds and Groundsel, such cute little critters !🐭
Well yes, animals like variety, we’d go nuts eating the same thing all our lives!
My wife has a bit of hoarder survivalist in her, I’ll show her your list for ideas!
Degu food? Consults Google.
Degu food lol 🐭
One has to have something warm and hairy to snuggle up to on those long nuclear winter nights! 👁
One thing that is glaringly obvious? Mainland UK is wide open to air attack with no defence for key sites. I dare say two submarines from a certain country could happily take out the power network, and a few key bases in a matter of hours. If they cut the undersea cables as well? Go think, successive political regimes have failed to defend mainland UK for decades. And will continue to do so until it is too late.
that got me thinking- with starlink now prevalent, the undersea cables wouldn’t be near as catastrophic to lose as they were just a couple years ago. and with 6000 starlinks in orbit- and heading towards 40,000- that will be impossible for an adversary to shoot down.
Question: Couldn’t Russia/China just launch and detonate a few nuclear missiles into orbit and let the electro magnetic pulse fry the systems aboard any satellite that was close by??
Presumably not without frying their own satellites as well.
That would be a proper doomsday act because a lot of what people rely on to stay alive and connected is on satellites.
Here’s the problem. The bodies identified are tasked with delivering a pipeline of multi year research and development capabilities
…not a pipeline of solutions.
“design and manage a contract pipeline to deliver the Missile Defence R&D category’s research requirements.” This includes large, multi-year research technology maturation projects, multinational and multi-supplier trials, and short-term rapid analysis.
There is no sense of ugency….what are the threats, is there a UK interim mitigation, is there an internationally available interim solution >>> procure. Meanwhile, commence long term R&D solutions that will take a decade to field.
Wow, is it Chistmas? A criminally neglected area. Any improvement urgently needed & very welcome. Can’t rely on our 6 T45s as during wartime they could be off on other ops, in refit, or sunk. Precious little else to cover the UK. So we need land based systems & to equip a growing escort fleet with more ABM missiles.
“6 T45’s”, lol, at least 3 if not 4 are stuck in Portsmouth, (At least Dauntless managed to escape earlier though) no weapons, no crew and no chance of getting either anytime soon. T23’s ? yes well maybe 2 might just be out there ATM but the other 6 are pretty much buggered. Astute’s are mostly parked up waiting for Facilities to be built. That pretty much leaves the 2 QE class and the Rivers. Still, worse things happen at sea.
To be actually able to defend the entire UK from missile attacks is impossible if an enemy were able to launch saturation strikes.( quite which enemy that might be is debatable) Relying on one or two T45’s and a handful of Land Ceptors and Typhoons is a joke. Our best defence is peace, God help us if war does break out.
How would any of this help defend a surprise attack?
There are what, four Typhoons on QRA to cover the whole country? Even assuming an instant pickup of an SSGN launch (we do not have 24/7 coverage from the air), how practical would they be to stop a surprise attack on our radar systems?
Type 45? Again, how many are actually at an alert state while in port? None?
Exactly, It’s a travesty long overlooked by many governments over many decades. The reality of where we are now is a direct result of piss poor government priorities.
Too little too late. By the time a contractor has been successful through the bidding process and its getting built, we will have changed the requirements and added another couple of billion to the contract and 5 years worth of delays. We should have been looking at this 10 years ago. Its the same old story, we never learn or want to learn.
Why haven’t we bought Iron Dome or Patriot missile system is beyond me we have no navy Type 45 are no good always in Refit If Russia or North Korea send over 100 Missiles or Drones good by UK
patriot and THAAD are the obvious choice. but its going to take a couple years for the US to be able to up patriot production, they are curtailing deliveries to allies to replace stock sent to ukraine as their current production rate of 550 a year was found to be not nearly enough after seeing how quickly they get used in ukraine.
i don’t think iron dome was really designed for cruise missiles except certain circumstances- its a relatively slow, unsophisticated missile – as its primary purpose is to intercept those short range rockets hamas uses and designed to be cheap and able to produce quickly. i think the USMC bought some then quickly realized they weren’t fit to defend guam so passed them on to israel… could be wrong though.
Iron dome can intercept cuise missiles, they are slow speed.
Type 45 should not even be in the discussion! We don’t have enough to protect naval operations and protect UK airspace. The fact it is being discussed just says all that needs to be said about the state of air defences.
£250 million to assess the AAW capability of the U.K. For a 1 per cent commission I’ll give you the answer Mr Pollard. ZERO. ☠
As far as I know, a static/semi static setup was used when trialling PAAMS. That would seem a logical solution, using tried and tested systems and having missile commonality with the type 45s.
The setup for PAAMS was fully static.
If you ever go to Portsmouth or nearby, have a look up on the hill at Portadown. It looks like a T45 is sitting on top of the ridge (along with an Artisan a bit further along), where modifications to the radars are tested.
It’s been proposed in the comments here before as a site for GBAD, but would have to be bought back from Qinetiq, who owns it.
My personal suggestion, if we wanted commonality with the Navy, is to use a line or array of static Sampson’s along with converted VLS to form a series of “Type 45s” for coverage of the entire UK.
The sites could be run by the RAF and put next to air bases, also providing practice against a representative larger GBAD systems like S400 in peacetime.
Yes, that was my idea ad well. A number of “Type 45s on land”.
Slight correction mate, and I may be wrong, but pretty sure the LBTS, Land Based Test Site, which is the Portsdown installation you refer to with the T45 set up, is MoD owned. Qinetiq run the place, like they do with all the other T&E sites which remain MoD owned.
And yes, I’d love it if that site was given an operational back up role.
I was basing that mostly off Google Maps, where the site is labelled as “BAE Systems MISC” and the technology park it’s sited on is owned by Qinetiq.
It might just be smoke and mirrors, you are the expert on the MoD Estate.
Wouldn’t need that many radars I don’t think; we don’t need to cover every line of approach – Russia isn’t going to launch missiles at us over NATO allies. Worst case would be over Ireland, but in most cases I’d expect an arc coming in from the north- would probably only need a few installations.
Personally, I’d just buy SAMP/T OTS, but not against SAMPSON.
My thinking has changed through this debate. The running plan at present is to use several large early warning radar mounted very high up that can spot aerial contacts below the horizon and also provide targeting data to mobile SAMP/T batteries under regional control and covering several military establishments at once.
I think there are three main arcs of attack;
North Atlantic towards Scotland and NI
North Sea towards East Coast and London
Western Approaches towards South West and Portsmouth
The Northern Arc, I think, requires two large radars because the angles covered are so large. I suggest one on the Orkneys and one on the Outer Hebrides with overlapping ranges.
The Eastern sector needs one radar, ideally on a tall hill by the coast somewhere just north of East Anglia.
The South Western region also only needs one radar as it is the narrowest sector. I propose that this would be placed in Cornwall where it can look North to Wales and South into the Atlantic.
I would agree about the northern arc 100%.
My question is, I guess, whether the other arcs are required; the eastern approaches are covered by NATO allies, many of them with pretty robust AD themselves. The southwestern approach would also entail coming in through French/ Irish airspace, which I also find pretty unlikely. Unless the radars are relatively inexpensive, I’d consider the risks and maybe concentrate on getting more launchers and missiles.
I don’t think the south west is as protected as you say.
If you look on a globe, there is a very large gap between Ireland and France, with a lot of open ocean behind to hide in.
Add in that all of our QRA airbases are on the East coast and the location of e.g. Devonport and Portsmouth, with Brest on the other side of the channel as high priority targets.
If I were a Russian SSGN commander planning my strike on the British mainland, I would attack from the south.
The radars themselves would not be particularly expensive. I am imagining something like the PESA search radar on the T45s but perhaps upgraded to improve resolution in spotting drones (the mobile batteries have their own radars, though hopefully a bit better than the standard SAMP/T)
The expensive part is required irrespective of the launcher/ radar combination and that is the C3 system that organises the airspace and defence of the whole country and prioritised targets.
France has 10 Mamba SAMP/T systems. I think Italy 6. Roughly £2 billion a system and would be common missile stocks with the RN.
A competent govt would have bought one battery every couple of years ever since ir was introduced. Draw 80 mile radii circles over a map of GB and it wouldn’t take that many.
Three Aegis ashore systems would add an outer layer.
Other OTS options exist.
Copy US Army and USMC mobile, truck based Mk41 launchers heat can lob Tomohawk or SM6 missiles for Air defence and deterence in one hit.
To think we are spaffing £11,6 b to help the 3rd world “fight climate change” FFS
It doesn’t really need an expensive “study” to show the obvious.
To me, the solution is surely to join the SAMP/T programme with Italy and France, buy into Aster block2, and plan for a few key sites in the Shetlands and other key areas over the northern arc above Scotland; some mobile units can also be procured to create layered AAD bubbles wherever the army is deployed in force; CAMM & ER procured in greater numbers to cover some of the key facilities and also to augment the army in the field; replacement/update for Stormer using Starstreak & LMM procured; LOTS of missiles for all of these procured.
Then, if they have any cash left, they can spend it on discussing how to stop Russia and Iran sharing missile tech.
I would agree Samp/T would be the sound choice as the RN could have a common stock of missiles for the ground based and T45 based systems.
That’s exactly my thinking, and also gives the RN a route into Aster Block2 for T83.
The big lesson from Ukraine (among many) for me is that you can never have too many rounds ready to fire!
Indeed and we will have a national capability to maintain rebuild ect..
All compliant with the new government’s industrial strategy and sovereignty of key military capabilities where possible.
Plus it’s an existing system that has now been combat proven in Ukraine, and has commonality and integration (assuming the Italians sorted SAMP/T and CAMM) with our existing complementary systems. So we can buy it without any customisation requirements, except maybe putting them on MAN trucks instead of the likely French or Italian chassis.
Let’s be honest the MoD has more diversity managers than it does fighting people and we have bugger all to defend ourselves except the hope the russians die laughing
You know that’s just not true, let’s not lessen the debate and discussion.
👍
Maybe not but then Sam des Forges is on what 110,000 sitting nicely in a little office in Whitehall as diversity and inclusion director, God only knows what the combined bill for all this crap in the MoD is, then the schools (my local school was advertising for one on 5k a year more than the top teacher pay scale), the hospitals et al. The cost of all of this is probably about the same as defending the country properly, but as I said, at least the russians will have a damned good laugh. Same as the ‘territorials’, trained to march and clean their guns blindfolded, no damned idea how to shoot straight though (and yes, I have been part of that mess)
What’s not funny is that this GBAD UK issue is actually not funny at all. Those heavy Russian missiles talked about above, just three to takeout the UK?! What’s being done to counteract that threat besides deterrence?! You don’t need to wait until youre hit. Try stopping being hit in the firsr place! The bods and experts in charge need to seriously fill these gaps asap and with something more than the crappy Vamtac trucks with Starstresk/LMM! Obvious big plus is shared inventories. It really pisses me off that other countries have all these systems in place and the UK….?
We have a GDP of apparently 3 trillion, the russians 2 trillion, yet the russians just had a naval exercise with 200 or so ships… our navy has what 20? They have lost more planes to ground attack in Ukraine than our RAF has, we have 2 aircraft carriers to their one, but ours dont have any aircraft (and we scoff theirs cant leave port without a tug, well at least it CAN leave port with a tug which is more than either of ours manage). We have 60k in the army, the russians lost that last year.
Something like this should have been done long before now
Hope this isn’t just all talk with out a doubt we definitely need GBAD . ITs a shame we didn’t go ahead with the Blood Hound replacement I believe we had planned in the late 1980s. Hard to believe country like ours no GBAD .He’s hoping more Sky Sabre maybe 🤔 🇬🇧
Most scenarios i presumed would happen to the world & the UK over the 40 years is bearing fruit . China would transition from push bikes to cutting edge military tech. (Even if reverse engineered or stolen) The middle east would not be a peaceful entity after UN/USA +NATO incursions. Israel would never accept peace with the Counties surrounding her. Russia & China & India would instigate their own military agendas +base building partnerships throughout 3rd world countries .Meanwhile the UK would allow it’s armed forces to be equipped with indigenous weapons (some are of dubious quality however the intent ? Nich quality weapon systems are all well & good if you have them in quality & have the training. Look at us now in 2024 ? Where do we start The billion on Green energy/COVID/ Mis-investment/ woke agendas,& division through Adversity? Once upon a time we were talking about Type 45’sbto defend our skies ? Its lamentable.We will never have enough of anything worthwhile.imo
Reality Check.
Back in the good old days of the 1980s when ivan and the UK played the game there was, in reality, zero protection from Ballistic missiles or high speed, high diver cruise missiles.
RAF Bloodhound system was for bombers but the bombers would be launching things like AS4Kitchen and AS6 Kingfish at the UK from hundreds of miles away well out of the Bloodhounds range . The missiles flew at 90+Kft and dived in at a steep 85deg angle at +Mach 4. From my experience in the RN, a T42 would detect at long range and then lose them as they flew outside the radar parameters. They had at the terminal phase around 5 seconds from detection on 992 radar to engagement with sea dart if it wanted to avoid being hit. It would be no different for Bloodhound.
The threat from pop up sub launches also was also a thing.
We had
Rapier for FGA attacks on airfields.
QRA and long range intercepts were Phantoms and F3.
If ivan went for ballistics then SS22 Scaleboard or SS20 Sabre where in play but being nukes if they launched it was all a bit immaterial.
What stopped a lot of this was INF Treaty that limited and eliminated medium range weapons and the end of the cold war.
INF is now dead and buried and everyone is now playing catch up again.
A comprehensive AD system in the UK would bankrupt the country. Even providing protection of critical infrastructure is probably going to be extremely limited. Bloodhound in its day was limited to a handful of locations on the east coast to protect the V bomber force.
Best you can expect in my opinion?
Extra Sky Sabre.
MRBM missile protection is OK for limited launches. Against a comprehensive strike you will get leakers. It also costs a massive amount. Israel can do it but its up against one threat axis (Iran) and its not doing it alone. It has massive financial backing from the USA.
You are probably better off protecting the RAF jets by dispersal and operating off roads because the few airfields we have will be hammered.
Is F35 operating from forest clearings a la Harrier in RAFG on anyone’s bingo card?
Only if the forest clearing is in Scandanavia.