The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has 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.”

Avatar photo
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

72 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Callum
Callum (@guest_832213)
14 days ago

Well that’s about as tortured an acronym as SHIELD in the Marvel comics, but at least its catchy and dealing focusing on an important subject. I’ll still maintain the answer for the UK is simply reinforcement of the RN; for the primary missile threats to the UK that we can physically counter (cruise and ballistic missiles), the most effective option is air defence vessels deployed between us and the Arctic where Russian or potentially even Chinese submarines would be based. Combined with increased ASW assets to drive those submarines further away from the UK mainland and thus increase the time… Read more »

FormerUSAF
FormerUSAF (@guest_832239)
14 days ago
Reply to  Callum

Believe you are correct in assessment that additional investment in the RN, especially upgrades to T-45 class, may be the most timely and cost effective interim measure available to upgrade UK missile defence. Meanwhile, STORM R&D programme hopefully makes substantial progress in defining a comprehensive solution of missile defence. Would not anticipate deployment before mid-late 2030’s.

Bob
Bob (@guest_832241)
14 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

Can they be manned while undergoing maintenance, because most of them spend their life tied up atm? 🙃

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_832732)
12 days ago
Reply to  FormerUSAF

I agree, the first stage should be close co-ordination with Japanese plans as they have made the decision to go from land to naval based defence due to cost, vulnerability and local objections, all things likely to impinge on our planning.

Marked
Marked (@guest_832359)
14 days ago
Reply to  Callum

The handful of ships we have are needed for fleet defence not homeland defence. If that’s their role we might as well scrap the carriers because come wartime there will be no escorts to enable them to sail anywhere.

Callum
Callum (@guest_832360)
14 days ago
Reply to  Marked

Hence why I said the answer is REINFORCEMENT of the RN, not just reforming the Home Fleet with the assets we have.

If this were done with the most obvious option (increasing orders of existing ship classes), then a nice benefit would be that we could also deploy those ships elsewhere when the missile threat to the UK is judged low, which is basically always.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_832740)
12 days ago
Reply to  Callum

I understood your logic Callum, esp as the timescale would unlikely to be shorter with a land based solution as compared to a ship based system in reality, people need to understand the inevitable planning issues this would entail unless a totally mobile option is made available. That would be the only land based solution that should be considered but depends entirely on what technology and options that would allow and indeed if infrastructure where it would likely need to be located. Otherwise entrenched locations will be a serious liability and would need more locations and greater depth and layers… Read more »

Mark
Mark (@guest_832387)
14 days ago
Reply to  Marked

I think they should keep the. 4 latest updated type 23’s for another 5-7 years service patrolling Scotland and Northern Island for solely ASW… Use them in pairs one Northern East England to the Scottish Isles and second team covering Irish sea and out in the Atlantic and up west of the Scottish Isles. I believe we spent Millions on 4 ASW and 1 GP Frigate With new seaceptor radar and other systems.. They are capable ships especially keeping them close to the coast line.That would free up new coastal/River batch 2′,s has there representing GB. . In. .Many othèr… Read more »

Meirion X
Meirion X (@guest_832662)
13 days ago
Reply to  Mark

“….sell POW to a European Allie because we will nevé have 2 of when needed…”

That’s why the RN have two carriers, so if one is not available, due to refit or repair, etc, the other will step in to fulfill a priority role, proved earlier this year with PoW stepping up to take QE’s place in the NATO exercise in North Atlantic and Baltic. The French can’t do this, with only one carrier!

Last edited 13 days ago by Meirion X
Rob N
Rob N (@guest_832642)
13 days ago
Reply to  Callum

By pinning naval assets to defence of the land you are just wasting one of your most potent assets. A better way would to buy ASTER 30 block 1 land bassed SAMs like the French. These could be upgraded to 1NT and block 2 when they become available.

Callum
Callum (@guest_832646)
13 days ago
Reply to  Rob N

Defence of the UK is the primary role of the navy, and all of the armed forces for that matter. Land-based defences have are a far lower chance of interception, and require a lot of manpower and money that can only do one thing. A warship, on the other hand, can be positioned far closer to the threat, intercept earlier in the attack, and can do additional tasks. Also, to repeat myself again, I specifically stated the additional ships could be deployed elsewhere as needed. More ships gives us flexibility; nothing would be “pinned” to the mainland, but we could… Read more »

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_832745)
12 days ago
Reply to  Callum

Agreed. As I say let’s go talk to the Japanese who have spent years coming to that very same conclusion in an island Nation environment. If with their economy they found the cost of a land based system a serious impediment, though I suspect their plan was rather more complex than any solution we would likely look to impliment. France is simply not comparable as it is not an island nation and it can’t stick ships on its border with Germany.

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_832914)
12 days ago
Reply to  Callum

In one respect I would disagree. That is the means of detecting a threat to the UK. We have a fairly decent ground based radar network. However, with only 3 Wedgetails, this is simple not enough to cover the UK 24/7. So my main change would be to expand the Wedgetail fleet.

Bob
Bob (@guest_832214)
14 days ago

First act (and possibly the easiest to implement) should be to counter the threat of submarine launched cruise missiles.

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_832216)
14 days ago

While other nations have ballistic defence systems already in place, we belatedly form another committee.
Let’s hope there’s money at the end of the process to actually deploy sufficient missiles/defences in a timely fashion.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_832218)
14 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

That’s the thing, we have so many studies that absorb hundreds of millions there’s no actual hardware at the end of it.
No other choice if we’re to develop our own and not buy OTS.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_832255)
14 days ago

You know my opinion maximum speed, simple logistics and leverage existing systems.
Just take the T45 Land based Sea Vyper with all available mods and stick say half a dozen locations around UK. Plus one each at Gib and Cyprus.
If you put them on highpoints in UK that’s a lot of coverage for not a lot of money.

Coll
Coll (@guest_832338)
14 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

I wonder if would easy as moving the Sampson radar test facility up in Portsmouth North. 50.856560333550746, -1.0901735023464483 Google Earth. As a start. Oh, the SAMPSON radar is no longer in production.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_832444)
14 days ago
Reply to  Coll

That’s Portsdown Hill, the LBTS. I don’t think the RN, who test their new kit there or QinetiQ, who run the place on behalf of the MoD, would approve!
Why move it north? Use it in situ, most strategic government, military and R&D installations are actually in the South and West of the UK, many a legacy of WW2.

After, if it’s feasible, as Rodney suggests.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_832753)
12 days ago
Reply to  Coll

Well the inherent technologies are still being worked on, Bae were proposing various developments including the third upward looking panel not that long ago. Equally such platforms aren’t exactly production line products and it never was in such small numbers so producing new small batch versions are perfectly feasible though inevitably expensive but then SPY radars are hardly corner shop either. Nothing comparable will be cheap either.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_832932)
12 days ago
Reply to  Coll

I don’t think the RN would take too kindly to that facility being moved, as it’s more than just test it’s the training facility. And many things have gone out of production but it doesn’t mean they can’t restart them (Storm Shadow for one). If they built 6 and tied them to SMART L MM then you have the basis for a very effective system. Some folks look at Japan and their decision to not proceed with a version of land based AEGIS but 2 extra have AAW Destroyers. That’s fine if you don’t tend to deploy overseas like the… Read more »

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_832373)
14 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Truck based SAMP/T with the latest Aster. That would be a sensible start and doable within a few years!! Surely!?

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_832760)
12 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I agree that’s the sort of land based solution I feel is indeed practical, higher end solutions esp as it becomes inevitably less mobile in nature should be overwhelmingly sea based.

As an aside don’t know if looking well to the future some air based solution might become feasible, probably fanciful.

ABCRodney
ABCRodney (@guest_832937)
12 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

Problem with mobile is it’s more expensive than fixed and it requires more maintenance and manpower. And SMART L MM isn’t exactly easily portable.
I’d go fixed for a U.K system but SAMP-T for the Army.

You need both !

Dahedd
Dahedd (@guest_832375)
14 days ago
Reply to  ABCRodney

Bingo. Land based T45 system, already have one sat above Portsmouth (?)

Start with the Northern Isles, RAF Lossie or RAF Buchan (peterhead), the Borders and work south. Airbases and ports need protection from rotating Sky Sabre batteries & a follow on T31b or T32 should be a full fat Iver Huitfeld style air defence ship to supplement the T45.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_832376)
14 days ago
Reply to  Dahedd

Yes, 2-4 AAW T31/A140s could also be good for the LRGs. And the cross-sharing of ASTER/CAMM/other missile inventories for greater utilisation.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_832763)
12 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

That’s why Callum’s thoughts do make sense rather than limiting our thinking purely to precious T-45s. We have a potential solution as a base platform in early stages of its production if we want to go in that direction that isn’t restricted to home defence either.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_832379)
14 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

It seems pretty poor doesn’t it? Should be having a bit more foresight and action on all this and a whole lot sooner than later. Even the Japanese are going ahead with a couple of super AEGIS ABM style cruiser at 20000mt I believe. If you can’t have 1-2 those, there’s the Italian DDX, T31 that could all have AAW variants to complement the T45s. How long are they going to take on the T83?

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_832380)
14 days ago
Reply to  Quentin D63

I suppose the Tories only care about themselves, so either have the dosh to flee abroad somewhere safer or build their own bunker. The rest of us just don’t matter to them. Why else leave the country so terribly defended? In WW2 at least we had some air raid shelters.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_832384)
14 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

I think the word for it is “neglect”, possibly some “stupidity” too, for leaving the country potentially very exposed. Nice to have all the ships, planes, missiles, tanks, but the home base needs to be protected.

Last edited 14 days ago by Quentin D63
AlexS
AlexS (@guest_832485)
13 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

What does this have to do with Tories?
Do you see anyone on the left calling for air defence missiles? or instead cultural appropriation -as usual only in one sense- gender blah blah etc…

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_832488)
13 days ago
Reply to  AlexS

It’s they who’ve left us without air defence from missiles, dangerously short of air defence escorts & gapping serious capabilities etc. Many other countries have ballistic defence systems.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_832499)
13 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

False. UK have never had a ballistic missile defence.

The short range 8km Rapier was replaced by 25km Sky Sabre in 2021.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_832510)
13 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Bloodhound was removed post 1991. Rapier in 2 RAFR Sqns in Scotland went a bit later, timeline I forget. From 2004 on, Labour cut: The RAF Regiment Rapier Sqns. The RAF Regiment Rapier Sqns that supported USVF at RAF Stations. Reduced 3 TA AD regiments on HVM to 1. Reduced 2 Rapier Regiments to 1. Reduced 2 HVM Regiments to 1. So 7 Regiments to 3. The Tories kept this ORBAT till current times and started replacement with modern kit. Just for balance, as I know you think the Tories are the font of all that’s wrong with the UK… Read more »

Frank62
Frank62 (@guest_832519)
13 days ago

Hi Dan, I only blame the Tories for what they did under their watch of course. How about cutting all the subsedies to privatised companies who robbed us blind whillst awarding themselves bonuses & dividends, or the PPI contracts for unusuable PPI? Or the subsedies for the HOC resturant or bar? Or MPs pay & expenses?

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_832529)
13 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Hi Frank.
Oh, I was only thinking of the money MoD already has allocated. If Labour are more efficient and close some loopholes I’d support that. If!
Interestingly, I did read of Healey promising some attention to this area. I just hope it’s not funded by cutting needed capabilities elsewhere, which is a big fear.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_832773)
12 days ago

I think realistically you have spelled it out accurately there. However we underestimated Putin, his madly driving us into WW3 wasn’t quite on the agenda pre Ukraine.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_832769)
12 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

You sound like me, difficult not to be cynical about the ‘little peoples’ value to the elite. Been watching Fortnite on Amazon, even a video game inspired production of this nature scarily illuminates this thinking… and devised by English originators too so maybe we aren’t so unique in our thinking here. Could be worse mind we could have toxic misfiring rockets falling on us every couple weeks as in China, at least ours crash at sea.

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_832747)
12 days ago
Reply to  Frank62

Probably not but in the mean time it keeps those in the ruling classes ungainfully employed which seems to be the whole purpose of Britain these days.

Trevor G
Trevor G (@guest_832217)
14 days ago

This feels like the beginning of another. painfully long process (per T45, T26, UAVs Ajax etc) involving many years before operational deployed kit becomes a reality. Would be delighted to be proved wrong…

Tommo
Tommo (@guest_832283)
14 days ago
Reply to  Trevor G

And by the end of this all , hey presto Barrage balloons as all the funding went on R and D

DH
DH (@guest_832397)
14 days ago
Reply to  Tommo

What a load of hard blow that was, wait, not that sort. 😁. 🕳️, back to the hole.

Jonny
Jonny (@guest_832229)
14 days ago

I’d rather we got a proper missile defence system. I guess we won’t get any big ticket items until Labours big defence review happens now.

Jack
Jack (@guest_832232)
14 days ago

1) Do we need missile defence ?
2) If yes, is there a solution that already exists and is available to purchase ?
3) If yes, purchase it.

Rfn_Weston
Rfn_Weston (@guest_832238)
14 days ago

Surely we could integrate existing targeting tech to tie in with Flyingdales and build fixed installations in strategic locations with a newly developed interceptor – Or SM-3… For less than £110 million?

A few well placed installations would quickly blank out the entire UK.

Instead lets spaff £110 Million on F*ck all with nothing to come from it.

Quentin D63
Quentin D63 (@guest_832385)
14 days ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

Fylingdales itself should have some defensive protection. Should be plenty of power supply there to plug stuff in!

Spyinthesky
Spyinthesky (@guest_832776)
12 days ago
Reply to  Rfn_Weston

Movable locations have enough trouble in Ukraine let alone a few fixed ones.

David Owen
David Owen (@guest_832319)
14 days ago

British ballistic defence ,eh future defence secretary to future prime minister, the tory bxxxxxds privatised it and then sold it off,oh dear says the prime minister 🙄, well the concept anyway 🙄, prime minister-eh how much did they get ?errr eh 2 pints of Guinness bottle of red and a Chinese take away oh and a golf holiday for 2 in Skegness,

Coll
Coll (@guest_832334)
14 days ago

I wonder what other announcements we will get at Farnborough.

Coll
Coll (@guest_832341)
14 days ago

Is SaxaVord only a remote air defence radar?

Exroyal.
Exroyal. (@guest_832404)
14 days ago
Reply to  Coll

Saxa is a Remote Radar Head. Having visited it many times the last being just before Covid, one thing struck me every time was how vulnerable it was. Stuck up in the air, completely unmanned. No attempt to harden up defences in any shape or form. It would take one man with a few demolition charges and it would be gone. Or even a missile or two. Brilliant location for getting a radar picture of the area towards Iceland,Faroe and Norway. Google Satellite gives you an idea. Of all the times I was there it was usually bathed in mist… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_832449)
14 days ago
Reply to  Exroyal.

Interesting. I’d read the place had legacy Cold War shelters, the odd Yarnold bunker, and so forth.
All our RRHs, and just about every other nations, could probably be described in a similar way.
The security is, I guess, more technical than physical.
But how do you protect such a place?
Where are the resources to prevent some bloke with an NLAW type weapon sitting in the heather near by and firing at it?
An RAFR Flight per RRH?

Exroyal.
Exroyal. (@guest_832452)
14 days ago

You raise good points as a defensive position it has the advantage ofhigh ground. However with standoff weapons even basic ones the term sitting ducks springs to mind. Contrast that However with the no longer. RAF Ash.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_832460)
13 days ago
Reply to  Exroyal.

Big difference though mate! 😆 RAF Ash was the standby CRC, a C3 location in an R3 underground bunker, it’s not going to be easily targeted. Similar CRCs in R3s existed at Neatishead and Buchan, all deactivated under LABOUR ( for all the Tory bashers on this thread ) And another remains at Boulmer. We are considering RRHs, nor CRCs with no radar and hidden below ground. How do you defencea RRH in peacetime? I suggest it’s not possible with the resources available and only in war or movement to war would forces be allocated, if at all. Thinking of… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_832448)
14 days ago
Reply to  Coll

As royal says, the correct term is RRH.

Marked
Marked (@guest_832358)
14 days ago

More millions spent to produce reports and waffle. Its what the bulk of our spending seems to go on.

Derek
Derek (@guest_832363)
14 days ago

Another bloody committee/talking shop – save the millions they will waste on hot air and instead buy a load of drivable SkySabre systems.

Paul
Paul (@guest_832365)
14 days ago

Do you mean we already do not have a defence shield. The now defunct Government really was a shower of s.

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_832450)
14 days ago
Reply to  Paul

This “defence shield” didn’t exist under the previous Labour one either, Paul.
Rather than Tory bashing I suggest posters look up the history of the ASCS post Cold War.

AlexS
AlexS (@guest_832532)
13 days ago
Reply to  Paul

There was never a defence shield.
Only Israel can be said to have a defence shield. Others have better than UK but no one really can cover every important part of their countries.

UK in top of cold war had Bloodhound but that was a missile to intercept the Soviet heavy bombers. It would never intercept a supersonic missile fired from those bombers.

And Rapier missiles to defend airbases and land forces. You could have put B-17 bomber in top an airbase at 8000m altitude and the Rapier would not hit it…

Nothing more.

Last edited 13 days ago by AlexS
DH
DH (@guest_832405)
14 days ago

A light hearted moment,” Shtormy vedder” _Blazing Saddles. 😊🕳️Btth.

Cripes
Cripes (@guest_832458)
14 days ago

HMG and MOD have been extremely negligent here, leaving us wide open to missile attack. It is very late in the day to start an R&D programme pondering what missiles we might need, they are needed now. This looks like a standard MOD bit of flimflam to suggest serious action while actually kicking the ball into the long grass of R&D, with any actual procurement years away. I don’t know if one missile type would be able to handle the wide range of threats, from UAVs to stealth air to cruise and hypersonic missiles. I note Poland has gone for… Read more »

Daniele Mandelli
Daniele Mandelli (@guest_832511)
13 days ago
Reply to  Cripes

I’m in agreement. I’d give the job to the RAF Reg and RAuxAF Reg but would need more pers8nnel.

Airborne
Airborne (@guest_832557)
13 days ago

They love their acronyms for such projects, but let’s be real, it should read project TURD, Tosh, Unfunded Research, Deffo not going to happen!

SteveC
SteveC (@guest_832563)
13 days ago

Interesting to see the concept behind the intercepting hypersonic missiles. Say the approach at 5000ft, that’s a ball-park detection range 70miles for ground based detection. That’s 72 seconds to intercept, to get a radar lock, establish a track, calculate an intercept vector, activate and slew the intercept launcher and launch the missile. All the time the projectile has been moving 1 mile per second. The tinniest error and it’s a miss. The Patriot system in the Iraq war, even with dual launches, was allegedly circa 10% successful. Even with airborne detection, the detection range is greater, but Russian hypersonic apparently… Read more »

DaveyB
DaveyB (@guest_832929)
12 days ago
Reply to  SteveC

That’s more than doable. I could tell you the T45’s PAAMS detection, assessment then reaction time, but that is secret. But suffice to say a T45 would easily handle the situation you have laid out. The big issue with Patriot in Gulf War 1, was that an anti-aircraft system was being asked to do an anti-ballistic missile role. The missiles being used did not have the correct fuzing timed to detonate the warhead ahead of the interception point. So a lot of the time, the proximity fuse detonated the warhead after the Scud had passed by. Patriot in the 1990’s… Read more »

John Hartley
John Hartley (@guest_832580)
13 days ago

So instead of buying something off the shelf (a SAMP/T battery for 500m) they will instead blow £250m on having lovely lunches, flying the world business class, staying in 4/5 star hotels & end up with nothing ABM wise to show for it. Way to go the deep state. Snouts still firmly stuck in the trough.

Michael Brigg
Michael Brigg (@guest_832602)
13 days ago
Reply to  John Hartley

Too late, this research should have been ongoing starting decades ago, and missiles in place years ago. So called research money that will be spent on committes, lunch breaks, basically having a jolly good time, and the usual making it last as long as possible with no commitment at the end for any actual hardware to do the job.

John Hartley
John Hartley (@guest_832836)
12 days ago
Reply to  Michael Brigg

I was at the MoD in Whitehall in late 97. One big wig wanted a THAAD purchase included in SDR98. Never happened. They have just spent the last 26 years going round in circles, wasting money & buying nothing.

Rob N
Rob N (@guest_832644)
13 days ago

Got excited for a minute and thought we were actually going to buy a land based SAM for homeland defence like the rest of Europe. But instead we are not deploying anything and are just doing research… i am sure we will have a well modelled system when the Russian missiles come in….

Cognitio68
Cognitio68 (@guest_833008)
11 days ago

There is nothing to research. There is a known requirement and there are known products which offer solutions. Simple answer by the most appropriate solution now then move onto the next problem. We’ve got to get out of this culture of Whitehall navel gazing.

Bringer of facts
Bringer of facts (@guest_833031)
11 days ago

Israels Arrow 3 seems to have performed very well against IransbBallistic missiles, maybe we should buy that and possibly build more under license.