UK forces have increased counter-drone activity in the Middle East, with a ground-based unit downing Iranian drones and air defence systems reinforced across the region, according to Ministry of Defence update.
A UK counter-drone unit operating in a high-threat environment shot down multiple Iranian drones over successive nights, including one engagement confirmed on 25 March. The previous day, British troops intercepted 14 “kamikaze” drones in a single night, described as the highest number downed in one engagement.
The activity comes alongside continued RAF operations, with Typhoon and F-35 aircraft flying defensive missions over Cyprus, Jordan, Qatar and Bahrain. UK pilots have now logged more than 850 flying hours in the region since the start of the current conflict, according to the Ministry of Defence.
Additional air defence assets have also been deployed, including British Army Sky Sabre systems arriving in Cyprus, while Rapid Sentry systems have been sent to Kuwait and Lightweight Multiple Launchers are due to be deployed to Bahrain. HMS Dragon has also arrived in the Eastern Mediterranean to integrate with allied air and missile defence efforts.
The UK also says that it will be working with partners to safeguard international shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, with senior military officials engaging the merchant shipping industry as part of efforts to manage risks to maritime traffic in the region.
So….Sky Sabre confirmed.
Danielle, pluralised comment in the article so multiple systems ‘arriving’, so not quite there yet? So of our mere 6 systems (aka launchers+), might there be 2 in the Falklands, 2 in Estonia with the BG and 2 arriving in Cyprus?
Good job there are 7 more on order, but when will they be delivered? Still such a small number compared to the old Rapier Fire Units.
Morning Graham.
Answer is a bit convoluted as
the MoD in their announcements interchange between System and Launcher, it’s not clear at all, by design, what we have.
A FOIA request I saw had the MoD refuse to answer how many launchers as it would “prejudice the effectiveness of the armed forces.”
The usual deflection crap.
A “System” should be 3 Launchers, plus radar, plus FC and support vehicles.
There are 4 Fire Batteries in 16RA, each is split into 2 Fire Groups.
Fully equipped, that equates to 24 Launchers, 6 per Battery, 3 per Fire Group.
How many of those FG even have the kit is unknown, though I understand that there are 11 Giraffe. But 5 of those are not part of the Sabre Battery set up but are included in the LEAPP Battery.
Certainly, 1 Battery until recently was the deployed element, with 1 FG was in the Falklands, a long term commitment as we know, and the other in Poland. The Polish commitment I believe has now ended. One photo of the Polish Det showed at least two launchers deployed.
I don’t know what if anything from 16RA is deployed as part of Cabrit.
I read that the payment for the additional 12 Launchers is over 4 years!!! For such a paltry sum, defence wise. So I’ve no idea on delivery timescales.
We do know that the CGS said that MRAD “Was to double”
I’d suggest in response, beware of the spin, as we have no idea for certain what a low bar we are starting from in the first place.
In GBAD, we are threadbare, no matter what HMG and the MoD say to spin it.
Launcher numbers were confirmed as 9 with 6 more ordered, going to a total of 15.
A REME mag online said that the Regt currently has 2 Battery worth and that will go up to 4.
Suggests 4 launchers per Battery.
Interesting….so at present half the Regiment is effectively without kit, if the 2 Batteries had the standard 6 launchers split 3-3.
Assume they rotate into the role of deployed Battery, with another on contingency, and the other two training?
Why would kit stay with the battery? As they rotate through the falklands they will take over whatever fleet is down there and then on return go on a period of leave and basic courses as the start their form cycle.
Sky Sabre was only bought for down south so imagine there is an operational fleet deployed and a training fleet in the UK.
Yes, sorry, that was what I was saying regards the deployed Battery.
I was also referencing the shit hits the fan scenario if the whole Regiment had to deploy. It cannot as it doesn’t have a Regiments worth of equipment.
So sad.
We protect mainly these very rich countries at our expense, i get the politics of it and protecting our few bases but who foots the bill, as there is open reports of the cost eating in the DIP, most likely thats just spin to cover how weak the DIP might be. Why can’t this rich nations defend them selves and the water way, why do we have do it for them?.
We’re not doing it for them, they also defend themselves and indeed have more GBAD than we do!
As we are seen as a major power, the optics are important. That we are there and seen to be involved and helping. We have a long history of alliance with Jordan, for example.
Allies are important. Our SF access those countries, just leaving them to it isn’t an option.
Of course, it also allows HMG to grandstand.
As a P5, G7 member, we SHOULD be there, the farce starts when our actual military contribution doesn’t match HMGs rhetoric, as seen by our inability to send a T45 for so long as not a single ship was available.
And that we lack effective layered GBAD. Those assets we are using there are for the Field Army.
Now what if 3 Division is engaged tomorrow? Where do 12RA and 16RA go? How many places at once?
Questions far beyond the competency of HMG…..
i gree we have be there i just am asking whos footing the big bill and what can’t the very rich Gulf states sort out the water way, we have little to offer. And you are right what little we have is in the Middle East leaving the Field Army, though the term army is very loosely, with little air defence. Normal rushing from drama to drama with out ever fixing the problem’
That would be the immediate answer but practically it’s not selfish. Our economy and that of the world relies on the vast oil/gas reserves these countries have, since the price we pay at the pump or in our energy bills are linked to the global rate. Trying to make sure that the infustructure isn’t damaged thanks to this pointless war is going to massively help the cost of living for everyone in the UK in the medium term. But first we need trump to find a way to exit the war.
Why do we not use our own oil and gas fields, the one Milband loves to shut down etc, and yes why are footing the bill for very, very rich Gulf nations to do not a lot.
Because they aren’t ours, they are owned by multinational companies that sell it at the international market rate. Common mistake that the media keeps repeating that drilling oil in the north sea would help. It wouldn’t even touch the global rate.
Those reports are fictitious then, because whenever something like this happens it’s funded from a separate Treasury contingency budget, not the MoD’s.
We get a lot of what we need via “the water way” – it’s called the Straits of Hormuz.
I’ve wondered why no alternate route was created, just in case, for this scenario.
Low and behold, I leant of the pipeline through Saudi to the Red Sea, I wasn’t aware of it.
Pity it only takes a fraction of the % needed at capacity vs ships.
Why weren’t more contingency options created, such as this?
There are several oil and gas pipelines going west from the gulf to the Red Sea ports. And from Iraq up to Turkey. Maps can be found on google. No doubt work on increasing their capacities is happening.
The UK gets only about 10% of its oil and 3% of its gas from the Middle East. The big increase in costs to the UK from the war is due to oil and gas prices being set based on worldwide supply and demand factors, not just ours, so the fact that 80% of East Asia’s oil and gas comes from the Middle East by tanker is still our problem.
Thanks, not an area I’ve looked into. Pity more was not done to mitigate this weakness, gor the wider world, not just us.
massive oversimplification on my part, but a ship canal between UAE and Oman ( might have need to cut through Saudi )
Yes, at some cost though.
Well there are pipelines, but as everyone (except Trump) knew that the Straits would be closed if Iran was attacked, everyone assumed nobody would be so stupid as to attack Iran.
Then the 47th president waddled over the horizon…
Simple answer is who would pay for it. Look at the UK, our roads and rail and power stations, schools, hospistals are in massive decay. We haven’t had a major infro investment in a long while. Capitism goes for the low cost solution unless it’s forced to invest.
Also it would have just moved the reliance from one suspect regime to another, Saudi is hardly the bastion of freedom or western values.
So all the missiles used etc will not have be replaced out of the defence budget? the one that is already over spent, And yes the very Rich Gulf states should be patrolling the Straits rather than expecting our run down skint nation to do most of work for them. And why can we not use north sea Gas and Oil, are we not allowed to?, not sure a wind farm puts gas out to heat any ones home.
(a) That’s what I said 🤦🏻♂️ though they may not necessarily be replaced like-for-like as munitions may have ended production or there may be a new better alternative on the market. (Eg: most nations sent their oldest, soon to expire, munitions to Ukraine first.)
(b) The Gulf States are currently quite busy every day shooting down drones and missiles fired at them, they’re shooting down more than us or the Septics.
As for patrolling the Straits, do you think their navies are stupider than ours? Every naval commander knows going into the Straits right now would simply result in sunk warships, which is why NOBODY is doing it.
(c) So you’re a communist, advocating that Britain should seize the oil and gas owned by the companies that have been licensed to produce in the North Sea?
(d) The U.K. burns gas as a method to produce electricity.
Windfarms produce electricity more cheaply and don’t require a fuel who access to it can be prevented by rogue states. From a national security and resilience perspective, windfarms make more sense.
(e) You pump an explosive gas into your honey? How quaint.
Wind farms certainly do not produce electricity more cheaply.
Wind (and solar) power has to be backed up, failing erratically and unpredictably. For modern gas plants that means burning gas at a rate of about 28% of the plants full-power fuel rate just to be hot, ready to go and producing zero electricity. For some older plants, it means as much as 40% of the full power load.
The Renewable Energy Foundation estimates that the UK has spent approximately £220 billion (2024 prices) on renewable energy subsidies since 2002, with current annual costs running at £25.8 billion, now comprising roughly 40% of total electricity system costs.
Wind turbines also create (overlooked because overseas) huge environmental costs. A modern wind turbine can contain up to 600 kilos of neodymium that is used to make powerful permanent magnets (NdFeB – neodymium-ion-boron magnets). To produce one tonne of the material, it is estimated that up to 12,000 m3 of waste gas is produced along with a tonne of chronic radioactive residue. Up to 2,000 tonnes of toxic waste including slurry tailings mixtures that can leak into ground water supplies are produced.
Wind turbine blades also kill huge numbers of bats and raptors every year.
So either you’re being dishonest or simply deluded… I don’t think it’s the latter as you knew you couldn’t rationally responded to my other facts, so you decided to go after wind farms instead…
Electricity from renewables is always cheaper than fossil fuels, suggesting otherwise is on par with flat-earth belief.
Wind does not fail erratically, because the wind never fails everywhere. Our windfarms are not located in a single location, so even if one area is becalmed, the others are producing. Though the U.K. is in the North Atlantic, not the Doldrums, so out to sea the wind is pretty constant. (Here’s a hint, they actually do research before siting windfarms so that they place them in locations which experience a high wind frequency.)
Hate to break this to you, but the turbines used in gas powerstations also rely on magnets. But if you want to go ahead and ban everything from gas turbines to headphones, feel free to try.
I’m glad you admitted how grossly inefficient gas plants are, having to burn so much gas just to be ready, whereas windfarms don’t have the same downside. The sooner we fully replace them with renewable/nuclear/storage mixture the better.
Domestic cats kill twice as many birds per year as windfarms, I assume you plan to exterminate all cats?
Then you’ll probably want to demolish all glass buildings as more birds are killed flying into these per annum than windfarms…
Why not just lose the atmospherics. They do you no favours.
To be absolutely frank, I have no real interest in the rest of your post above for that very reason.
Large gas generators do not use neodymium. Wind turbines do.
Battery storage is even worse from an environmental standpoint, particularly when it comes to recycling.
I say again, the Renewable Energy Foundation estimates that the UK has spent approximately £220 billion (2024 prices) on renewable energy subsidies since 2002, with current annual costs running at £25.8 billion, now comprising roughly 40% of total electricity system costs.
Cats can wear bells and many do. They do not kill rare bats. They certainly do not kill raptors.
Bit of a design flaw/inefficiency if you’re having to recycle battery storage..
Yes.
‘A significant fire broke out at a battery recycling facility in Kilwinning, North Ayrshire on 9 April 2025, exactly one year to the day after a similar incident at the same location. Six fire appliances from the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service (SFRS) responded to the scene at the Fenix site on Byrehill Place, following reports of explosions and thick plumes of smoke.
Local residents described scenes of chaos and fear. “It is like a movie scene with all the batteries, with cables coming out,” one said, noting debris strewn across the area, with visible battery fragments and cables. Emergency services promptly evacuated surrounding homes as a precaution, while Police Scotland advised the public to keep windows shut and avoid handling any debris.’
I have to say if the defense invest plan thing doesn’t have a significant line about buying additional air defences, it will be a national disgrace.
To me smacks of double standards. We will help the Middle East with anti drone measures, but not Ukraine. Not saying which is right and which is wrong, but to me lacks consistency.
We are helping Ukraine. We supply about 85,000 drones a year to them, including Octopus interception drones. Our target this year is 100,000 a year.
Yeah and I’m currently on INTERFLEX and have been for pretty much all of the last four years. I can assure you we are also leading the way in training Ukrainian troopers too. But your right – this year’s contribution in terms of numbers of FPV drones produced by UK PLC is impressive indeed and if we can do it for Ukraine then of course if we have to we can do it for ourselves. Have watched some trials and OCTOPUS in particular a very impressive bit of kit. Slava 🇺🇦👍🇬🇧
Respect and thanks for your service.
VMT 🇬🇧👍🇺🇦
Healey looked like a rabbit in the headlights on TV trying not to admit we are just hoping Iran can’t reach us whilst he pretends somehow if a ballistic missile left Iran now that “Nato’ and “Europe” would combine to locate, track and destroy it.
I still can’t get my head around the decisionmakers in Government or MOD? As soon as it was known that Trump was looking at attacking Iran. The risk to the sovereign bases area on Cyprus should have been marked as very high, especially with Hezbollah just across the sea and their access to Iranian tech! The bases air defences were completely inadequate, so something should have been put in place at the very start of decision for the US to ramp up its assets in the middle east.
Stormer using either Starstreak or Martlet, has been proven in Ukraine, to be more than capable of taking down Shahed type drones and cruise missile. Why was it only this week that it was sent to Cyprus? Yes a T45 is the gold plated standard, but initially Stormer would have provided 80% of the bases local protection. It just can’t defend against ballistic threats.
This lack of forethought smacks of the critical decision makers especially within MOD, not being capable of making rational nor logical decisions based on the known threat, ie burrowing their heads in the sand, as Hezbollah would never threaten Cyprus! To make matter worse, the Defence Select Committee (DSC) is not qualified to hold these people to account. The politicians just don’t understand the strategic or tactical ramifications of not having a suitable layered air defence system to protect key assets in the UK or abroad. The people of Cyprus are quite rightly pissed off, so the UK needs to seriously up its game or it will loose these bases in such a strategic area.
we definitely need some good news, after the fiasco labour have made of this crisis so far