Typhoon fighter aircraft were launched from RAF Lossiemouth on 14 April after an unidentified aircraft was tracked approaching the UK area of interest.
The aircraft did not enter UK sovereign airspace and remained in international airspace throughout, with no interception taking place. The Typhoons were supported by a Voyager air-to-air refuelling aircraft from RAF Brize Norton, reflecting a standard Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) response.
An RAF spokesperson said that QRA Typhoon aircraft were launched after unidentified aircraft were tracked flying towards the UK, adding that “the unidentified aircraft remained outside of our area of interest, and no intercepts took place.”
Some reporting has suggested the aircraft may have been a Russian long-range bomber, although this has not been formally confirmed by the Ministry of Defence.
Incidents of this kind are routine. The RAF maintains continuous QRA coverage from bases such as Lossiemouth and Coningsby, with aircraft held at readiness to respond to unknown or unresponsive contacts approaching UK airspace. These responses are triggered not only by confirmed incursions, but also by aircraft operating without transponders, failing to communicate, or flying in a manner that requires identification.
While individual scrambles often attract attention, they form part of a well-established and frequently exercised air policing system, both within the UK and across NATO. Similar activity takes place regularly in the Baltic and North Atlantic regions, where Russian military aircraft routinely operate in international airspace close to allied airspace.
You may be thinking this is not new, and that it happens all the time, and that is broadly correct, but it is worth keeping in mind that public awareness of these incidents largely comes from when they are reported, rather than from their actual frequency.
There was a gaggle of Tyhoons flying around March during the afternnon, and a tanker went up to refuel them.
The guardian is reporting that the DIP will be published tomorrow. Although it sounds like the same it’s again smoke and mirrors with money over the next decade rather than now.
I’m not seeing that on the front page. Do you have a subscription?
It was on my Google news feed with a link to their website. Now can’t find it.
Can’t post a link, Google the headline “Labor to boost defence spending by $53bn over next decade”
You might be looking at Australia’s Labor plan.
Could be, can’t find it now to check
Although it wouldn’t take a massive investment to get the UK equipment back on track. Could order another batch of t31 for another 1.5-2b over 5 or so years, they are not really war fighters and wouldnt be mod supplied kit for the second batch but combined with wildcat they can do a job against drones and light crafts.
Order another 20 or so eurofighters to sure up home defences and replace the batch1s. F35a would be better but not politically viable right now. Around 2b again would take time to build so spread over a few years.
After that the biggest gap is air defence and artillery. Sky saber is rather pricey so maybe look at cheaper options.
Rch155 is unit price around 14m, so 200 would cost around 3b.
So around 7b plus air defence over say 5 years. Around 2-3% increase in the overall defence budget.
Ok there are multiple other gaps but these seem the key ones that need plugging fast.
Manpower will always be the issue but the key is having kit available and not in repair cycle when needed.
Ok maybe double that for maintenance and ammo, but still not a huge uplift
Steve, I think you are picking up on the Australian announcement…. It’s not really an increase at all, just changing the methodology of calculating… now adopting the NATO standard which gives them the headline grabbing figure of an increase..
I can’t find an article about the dip from the guardian, but an article blaming the MOD. “The MoD has shown little sign of learning lessons or even admitting mistakes. The navy’s fleet of Astute nuclear-powered attack submarines has been repeatedly hit by mechanical problems, and a new fleet of Dreadnought submarines for Trident nuclear missiles is reported to be already facing the prospect of expensive delays.” – Guardian.
Now isn’t the Astute waiting for scheduled maintenance but lack of infastructure as caused the problems not the sub?
Never mind. I didn’t see your post with headline.
It is a 10 year investment plan
Yep, but you have to consider media reaction and obr. If it’s affordable over 5 years, you give yourself flexibility over 10. Labour won’t get away with boris approach of promising the world and not delivering on anything.
Or in fact farage, whos economic plan appears to involve spending the same money 5 times on different things without anyone really questioning it, other than economists.
I think that’s why they are taking there time with the DIP. So whatever is included they can deliver and is properly funded. Its frustrating. But I’d rather it be done properly rather than just another fantasy list of requirements.
100% agree, as long as that’s the reason.