does uk have cruise missiles

• Missiles of the World
• The United Kingdom

Missiles of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is one of the world’s five recognized nuclear powers, and its military possesses a capable arsenal of air- and submarine-launched cruise and ballistic missiles. Maintaining a continuous at sea deterrent (CASD) since April 1969, the United Kingdom deploys at least one of its four Vanguard-class submarines carrying nuclear-armed Trident D-5 ballistic missiles at all times to maintain what the UK’s defense strategy calls “the minimum amount of destructive power needed to deter any aggressor.” In service since 1992, the UK is working to replace the Vanguard -class submarines with the new Dreadnought -class beginning in the early 2030s.

The United Kingdom is presently engaged in long-term acquisitions of complex conventional missile systems. In 2010 the Ministry of Defense signed a 10-year Portfolio Management Agreement with MBDA Missile Systems to manage acquisition goals, which is believed to have saved the country as much as £1 billion. The development of new advanced air- and sea-launched cruise missiles such as the Storm Shadow, Spear 3, and Brimstone Sea Spear are chief examples of the UK’s capability in advanced precision guided munitions.

Britain moves first to supply Ukraine with long-range cruise missiles

• Medium Text

• UK provides longest-range weapons since the start of invasion
• Ukraine has been asking for long-range missile for months
• Missiles could enable strikes deep into Crimea
• Russia said this would require "response from our military"

TANKS AND PILOT TRAINING

Sign up here.

Reporting by William James; Editing by Kate Holton

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

William leads the UK Breaking News team, making sure Reuters is first to report key developments in political, economic and general news. He previously spent nearly a decade in Westminster as UK Political Correspondent and before that covered financial markets during the euro zone debt crisis.

Business Chevron

Gucci-owner Kering posts 10% drop in Q1 sales on sluggish Chinese demand

French luxury group Kering reported a 10% drop in first-quarter sales on Tuesday, dragged down by a slowdown at its star label Gucci, which suffered from weakness in Asia while undergoing a design overhaul.

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access Only $1 for 4 weeks

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

• 10 additional gift articles per month
• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• Videos & Podcasts
• FT App on Android & iOS
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Premium newsletters
• Weekday Print Edition
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Premium Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Everything in Print

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

Watch CBS News

U.K. giving Ukraine long-range cruise missiles ahead of counteroffensive against Russia's invasion

May 11, 2023 / 10:14 AM EDT / CBS/AP

Kyiv, Ukraine  — The British government announced Thursday it was giving long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine to help drive out Russia's occupying forces. The boost to Ukraine's forces came as Kyiv delayed its long-anticipated counteroffensive more than 14 months after the Kremlin's full-scale invasion, as the country awaits the delivery of more Western weapons.

U.K. Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told lawmakers in the House of Commons that Britain is donating Storm Shadow missiles, a conventionally-armed deep-strike weapon with a range of more than 150 miles. That means they can hit targets deep behind the front lines, including in Russia-occupied Crimea. U.K. media reported that Ukraine had pledged not to use the missiles to attack Russia itself.

Wallace said the missiles were "now going into or are in" Ukraine.

Ben Hodges, a former U.S. Army Europe Commanding General, tweeted : "Well done UK!"

He added: "This will give Ukraine capability to make Crimea untenable for Russian forces," and would force a Russian rethink of where to position its Black Sea fleet.

The British move gives another boost to the Ukrainian military as it receives other advanced Western weapons, including heavy battle tanks , long-range precision artillery and air defense weapons .

The announcement came shortly after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said his country's military needed more time to prepare for the anticipated counteroffensive, aimed at pushing back Russian forces who've occupied a vast swath of the eastern part of the country, and opening a new chapter in the war more than 14 months after the Kremlin's full-scale invasion.

Zelenskyy said in an interview broadcast Thursday by the BBC that it would be "unacceptable" to launch the assault now because too many lives would be lost.

"With (what we have) we can go forward and be successful," Zelenskyy said in the interview, according to the BBC. "But we'd lose a lot of people. I think that's unacceptable."

The interview was reportedly carried out in Kyiv with public service broadcasters who are members of Eurovision News, including the BBC.

"So we need to wait. We still need a bit more time," Zelenskyy was quoted as saying.

A Ukrainian fightback against Russia's invasion has been expected for weeks. Ukraine is receiving Western training as well as advanced weapons for its troops as it gears up for an expected assault.

While a counterpunch is possible as the weather in Ukraine improves, there has been no word on when it might happen. Zelenskyy's remarks could be a red herring to keep the Russians guessing, and ammunition supply difficulties faced by both sides have added more uncertainty.

A claim by the Ukrainian military on Wednesday that it had advanced up to 1.2 miles around the hotly contested eastern city of Bakhmut brought speculation that the counteroffensive was already underway. But Serhii Cherevatyi, spokesman for Ukraine's Operational Command East, told The Associated Press the attack was not the "grand counteroffensive, but it's a harbinger showing that there will be more such attacks in the future."

The Kremlin's forces are deeply entrenched in eastern areas of Ukraine, with layered defensive lines reportedly up to 12 miles deep. Kyiv's counteroffensive would likely face minefields, anti-tank ditches and other obstacles.

Russia is "acting slow" in Ukraine because it wants to preserve infrastructure and save lives there, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov claimed in an interview with the Bosnian Serb channel ATV broadcast Wednesday night.

Moscow has repeatedly explained its lack of advances on the battlefield as an effort to protect civilians, but those claims have been proven false.

Zelenskyy said Russian President Vladimir Putin is counting on reducing the war to a so-called frozen conflict, with neither side able to dislodge the other, according to the BBC. He has ruled out surrendering territory to Russia in return for a peace deal.

Military analysts have warned that Putin is hoping the West's costly support for Kyiv will begin to fray. Ukraine's Western allies have sent the country some $70 billion in military aid to help thwart the Kremlin's ambitions, and with no peace negotiations on the horizon the alliance is gearing up to send more.

European Union Foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said the possible need to delay a counteroffensive was a sign that the West must step up its military support for Ukraine.

"Certainly, they need more preparation," Borrell said at a defense and security conference in Brussels. "They need more arms. They need to gather more capacity, and it is us who have to provide for that."

A senior NATO official said that in the coming months of the war, Ukraine will have the edge in quality but Russia has the upper hand in quantity.

"The Russians are now starting to use very old materiel , very old capabilities," Adm. Bob Bauer, chair of the NATO Military Committee, told reporters late Wednesday in Brussels.

"The Russians will have to focus on quantity," he said. "Larger number of conscripts and mobilized people. Not well-trained. Older materiel, but large numbers, and not as precise, not as good as the newer ones."

Over the winter, the conflict became bogged down in a war of attrition with both sides relying heavily on bombardment of each other's positions.

A counteroffensive is a major challenge, requiring the Ukrainian military to orchestrate a wide range of capabilities, including providing ammunition, food, medical supplies and spare parts, strung along potentially extended supply lines.

The front line extends more than 600 miles, running from the north to the south of eastern Ukrain, but the most intense fighting this year has been around Bakhmut.

The Kremlin wants Kyiv to acknowledge Russia's sovereignty over Crimea and also recognize September's annexation of the Ukrainian provinces of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia. Ukraine has rejected the demands and ruled out any talks with Russia until its troops pull back from all occupied territories.

• Hypersonic Missiles
• Missile Launch
• Vladimir Putin
• Volodymyr Zelenskyy

More from CBS News

Why the U.S. military's withdrawal from Niger is a "devastating blow"

Israel lashes out over possibility U.S. may cut aid to army battalion

Poland "ready" to host NATO nuclear weapons, its president says

Baby saved from dying mother's womb after Israeli airstrike named in her honor

Listen Live

Know Your Missiles – the UK's most high-tech firepower

Warfare has come a long way from the first primitive projectiles, with a wide array of sophisticated missiles being available to modern combatants.

In fact, the very sophistication of modern weapons in general means the layman might have trouble distinguishing between missiles and other complex weaponry.

Modern bombs, for instance, often look like missiles because they are long, thin and equipped with fins. This is because bombing today is usually about precision targeting, with bombs frequently being laser guided.

• Know Your Army – Weapons And Organisation
• Know your Army – tanks, trucks and other vehicles
• Know Your Army – Boats And Aircraft

Rockets, meanwhile, have no internal guidance system and are aimed like rifles or artillery, though they do use their own thrust when launched at their intended targets.

Missiles combine both a guidance system and self-propulsion, though clever as they are, missiles cannot do everything. Other than rare multi-purpose missiles, they generally break down into four main types:

The British Armed Forces use several missile types from across these four broad categories. The Army, Royal Navy and RAF have both unique requirements and many roles that overlap, and the missile systems they use reflect this.

What follows is a breakdown by service of these missile systems, which illustrates the ways in which the Army's, Navy's and RAF's missile systems are both similar and unique.

While missiles can reach the scale of intercontinental ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads, they are also small enough to be used by individual soldiers.

The Army, Royal Marines and RAF Regiment make use of the NLAW and Javelin, which really complement one another, and are essential forms of defence for infantry confronting enemy tanks.

They are both anti-tank weapons, though the NLAW is designed to be used by regular troops who do not have to be expert anti-tank specialists, while the Javelin is heavier, longer-ranged and used by specially trained units.

NLAW stands for Next-generation Light Anti-tank Weapon and it works by hurtling towards a target before diverting and striking it from above, where tanks and other armoured vehicles are weaker.

As well as this overfly top mode, the weapon also has a direct attack mode that enables it to be used against bunkers as well.

To use the NLAW, the firer rests it on their shoulder, uses the sight to lock onto a target and then releases the 150-mm anti-tank missile from the launcher. It is a fire-and-forget weapon meaning it can fire one missile, be reloaded, and then trained on another target, thereby 'forgetting' the first target and enabling a second one to be taken out next. It has a maximum effective range of 600 metres.

The Javelin , meanwhile, is the next step up. It is a medium-ranged weapon that can fire effectively up to 2,500 metres and is used by specialist anti-tank platoons. Two crew members use Javelins , with one acting as the firer and the other as the loader for the 127-mm HEAT (High-Explosive Anti-Tank) missile once it is fired.

Like the NLAW, it is a fire-and-forget weapon and has both overfly top and direct-fire modes, which means it can also be used to strike stationary targets like bunkers and buildings.

The Army also has anti-aircraft missile systems.

One of these is the Starstreak High Velocity Missile (or HVM) .

Unlike the Javelin and NLAW, which both fire single missiles at a time, Starstreak launches canister missiles which contain three smaller explosive darts. In a sense, these work like the pellets in a shotgun shell, spraying the target – which might be a low-flying attack jet or helicopter – and increasing the odds that it will be hit.

The high-velocity part of HVM refers to the extremely high speed of its 130-mm canister missiles and the darts inside them, which travel at Mach 3.5, or 2,685 miles per hour. This is over three times the speed of sound and almost twice as fast as modern fighter jets like the Typhoon, which has a top speed of roughly 1,535 miles per hour . Its missiles, and darts, are effective up to an altitude of 1,000 metres (almost 3,300 feet.) According to the Ministry of Defence (MOD) Army website, Starstreak is effective at a range of up to five-and-a-half kilometres, though the manufacturer Thales has said this has been extended to seven.

Starstreak can be fired from a launcher rested on the shoulder of an operator on the ground, though it is more commonly mounted aboard an armoured vehicle known as a Stormer. This can fire eight Starstreak missiles as well as carrying 12 spares.

Thales also provides the Army with the newer Lightweight Multirole Missile (LMM) .

Also referred to as Martlet , this weapon can also be fired from shoulder-mounted launchers as well as from the Stormer, or another vehicle called the RAPIDRanger.

The 76-mm LMM can be used as both a surface-to-air and a surface-to-surface missile – in other words it can perform an anti-aircraft as well as an anti-armour role, making it a kind of hybrid of Starstreak and the NLAW and Javelin. Because of this, it might be thought of or referred to as being another anti-tank missile. However, while the manufacturer Thales does indicate it is useful against tracked and armoured vehicles, technically it is not really powerful enough to knock out a full battle tank. Having only a three-kilogram warhead as opposed to the nine-kilogram warhead on Hellfire missiles (see below), the LMM is therefore less able to take on the explosive reactive armour on full modern battle tanks. In its land role, it is therefore better suited to taking on Armoured Personnel Carriers (APCs) and other ground targets. Also, it does not travel as quickly as Starstreak, with its missiles going instead at Mach 1.5.

Additionally, when used by the Royal Navy's Wildcat HMA helicopters , LMM, or Martlet, can also perform an air-to-surface role when fired from helicopters at small vessels on the surface of the ocean. This is illustrated in the image below.

For longer-ranged firing, specifically on targets on the ground up to 70 kilometres away, the Army has the Guided Multiple Rocket Launch System (GMRLS) .

L ike the Starstreak and LMM, the GMRLS is fired from the back of an armoured vehicle, in this case a modified American Bradley Fighting Vehicle.

Just as the "high velocity" part of High Velocity Missile and the "multirole" part of Lightweight Multirole Missile refer to specific capabilities, the "multiple rocket" part of the GMRLS is key. It refers to the system's ability to also fire rockets , and a crew of three can launch a dozen of the 200-lb (91-kilo) rockets within 40 seconds.

Its missiles, however, are much larger. At 610 millimetres in diameter, four metres in length and weighing in at 1,670 kilograms, shoulder mounting or rapid firing them would be impossible.  

The trade off is that these missiles, which are referred to as ATACMS (or more precisely, the US MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System), go a lot further than GMRLS rockets, reaching distances of over 300 kilometres. Furthermore, they are due to be upgraded to the US Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) in 2024, which will take the range up to almost 500 kilometres.

More powerful anti-aircraft missiles are delivered by the Rapier Field Standard C air defence system. More commonly known as the Rapier , this can fire at two attacking aircraft simultaneously, making it more responsive than the aforementioned HVM or LMM missiles.

Firing its missiles up to 8,200 metres, Rapier is short-ranged and integrated with radar. It is designed to provide a limited defence against potential air attacks within a high-value area.

The next step up from the Rapier is its replacement, the Sky Sabre , which was introduced into Army service at the end of January 2022 . This is also referred to as CAMM (Common Anti-Air Modular Missile), Land Ceptor and, where it has already been in use by the Royal Navy, as Sea Ceptor.

By every measure, Sky Sabre is a huge step up from the Rapier. It too is radar integrated, but instead of detecting and engaging two targets simultaneously, it can detect and engage up to 24, and at distances of up to 15 kilometres from one another.

Its missiles also travel three times as far, up to 25 kilometres.

Sky Sabre has a sophisticated Battle Management and Intelligence suite. This controls its various missiles and guides them towards targets, as well as allowing for information to be shared with the RAF and Royal Navy, and with allies in NATO.

Sky Sabre's missiles are also noteworthy for their speed, being almost as quick at Mach 3 (2,300 mph) as Starstreak's Mach 3.5 missiles, something that makes it more effective at intercepting fast-moving air threats like fighter jets.

The Army also has air-to-surface missiles in their arsenal, a function of them having their own air arm, the Army Air Corps (AAC).

Its fleet of Apache AH-64E helicopters are equipped with Hellfire missiles , or more precisely the AGM-114R Hellfire II. These missiles have a largely anti-armour role and can strike tanks from up to 11 kilometres away, though typically direct targeting takes place up to eight kilometres. The Romeo variant, or 114R, have a multi-purpose warhead meaning that they can be used to strike a number of targets as well as tanks where several different kinds of Hellfire missiles would have been required before.

The Hellfire has been referred to as the most important heliborne weapon of the Western Bloc due to it helping to neutralise the threat of the Communist Bloc's huge numbers of tanks.

According to the MOD: "Each missile has its own guidance computer, steering control and propulsion systems, which help to ensure precision targeting … (and) … The air-to-surface missile can travel at up to 425 metres per second; which means it takes fewer than 20 seconds to reach a target five miles away."

Additionally, the Army's Apache helicopters are due to have their missile suites upgraded to include the Lockheed Martin AGM-179 Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM), according to a May 2021 announcement by Jeremy Quin, the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.

Like existing Hellfire missiles, JAGMs have varying warheads for different types of targets – be they tanks, more thinly armoured vehicles, buildings etc – although an improved guidance and targeting system. Hellfire missiles use laser targeting as a guidance device, whereas the JAGM will use a multimode seeker making it better able to function at night, in adverse weather conditions and against any countermeasures.

• Know Your Air Force – RAF Organisation
• Know your air force – transport and training aircraft
• Know Your Air Force – Combat, Support And Heritage Aircraft

The RAF also makes use of Hellfire missiles – Reaper drones can carry a variety of Hellfire AGM 114 missiles alongside 500lb GBU-12 laser-guided bombs. The Romeo variant is the example given in the table below.

As one would expect, though, most RAF missiles tend to be air-to-air rather than ground-to-air, due to the various fighter aircraft it has.

At present, the Typhoon is the main fighter jet of the RAF and has an array of missiles with which to conduct its missions.

The first of these is the ASRAAM , which is also used to equip the RAF's other fighter jet, the F-35B Lightning II .

ASRAAM stands for Advanced Short Range Air to Air Missile, with 'short' range, in this case, referring to its ability to hit targets out to just over 25 kilometres from the aircraft that launched it. These missiles move at a speed of Mach 3, or three times the speed of sound.

Launching of the missile is done in conjunction with the acquisition of a target via the aircraft's radar or the helmet sight of the pilot. Then, once in flight, it has a heat-seeking capability that helps guide it towards the target aircraft.

Once it reaches the target, the 166-mm missile has a warhead that has proximity fuses that are laser and impact guided and detonate the warhead at the exact moment necessary to maximise its effectiveness. In other words, it detonates slightly differently when hitting a large target than it does when hitting a small target (i.e. a larger bomber versus a small fighter aircraft or even a drone ).

Typhoons and F-35s also have the 178-mm AMRAAM missile , which means Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile. It is also heat seeking and can strike targets out to ranges of between 55 and 75 kilometres.

Since late 2018, Typhoons have also had the MBDA Meteor , the most advanced air-to-air missile in the world, capable of hitting targets at ranges of over 200 kilometres, travelling at a speed of over Mach 4.

Able to hit targets at well beyond the visual range of the pilots that fire it, Meteor is guided by radar and capable of hitting an array of different targets including other fighter jets, drones and even cruise missiles. According to the manufacturer MBDA, its ramjet propulsion system – made up of solid fuel, variable flow and a ducted rocket – enables the missile to have full trust all the way to its target. When it gets there, the combination of both impact and proximity fuses, as well as a fragmentation warhead, helps to detonate the missile at the optimum point, causing maximum target damage.

Additionally, the RAF also has the even longer ranged air-to-ground missile Storm Shadow . Also known as SCALP and previously carried on Tornados, these days the missile is delivered by the RAF's Typhoons . It is a deep-strike weapon designed to hit fixed or stationary targets as much as 250 kilometres away or more.

Finally, the Typhoon also carries Brimstone air-to-ground missiles. These perform a similar role to Paveway bombs, except that they are both guided and have their own thrust to get them to their targets. These may be moving vehicles on the ground, or moving ships on the surface of the ocean.

Brimstone missiles are guided by both laser (or Semi-Active Laser, SAL) and Millimetric Wave radar, which MBDA says helps to guide the missile to fast-moving targets in cluttered environments (i.e. an ISIS Toyota truck crossing a wreck-strewn battlefield.)

It has a range of up to 60 kilometres from fixed-wing aircraft like the Typhoon.

The RAFs and Royal Navy's F-35s are also equipped with some of these missiles, or are due to be in the coming years, though the advantage of the F-35 over the typhon is that it can carry a small number of missiles internally, making it less visible to radar.

• Know Your Navy – All The Ships And Subs In The RN
• Know Your Navy – The Fleet Air Arm
• Know Your Navy – The Royal Marines

The Royal Navy

While those in the Royal Air Force are geared up to deploy with air-to-surface missiles, those in the Royal Navy have to be prepared to counter this threat.

To this end, the Royal Navy's main fighting ships, its Type-45 Destroyers, are equipped with the Sea Viper , a guided surface-to-air missile system that can launch eight missiles in 10 seconds. Also known as PAAMS (Principle Anti Air Missile System), once airborne, the Sea Viper system can also guide 16 missiles to targets that are as far away as 70 miles (113 kilometres.)

Describing a missile test carried out by the Type-45 Destroyer HMS Defender in 2019, the MOD described the Sea Viper in action: "Just two and a half seconds after erupting from HMS Defender's silo, the missile accelerates to more than four times the speed of sound – otherwise known as Mach 4.

"High over the seas, it then manoeuvres at G-forces which no human being could withstand, to close in and destroy the target."

The Sea Viper system actually uses two kinds of missiles, the Aster 15 and the Aster 30, the latter of which is longer ranged. The stats for the Aster 30 are the ones used in the table below.

In addition to Sea Viper, the naval variant of the Sky Sabre system known as Sea Ceptor , or CAMM (Common Anti-Air Modular Missile) already in service on the Navy's Type 23 Frigates, will also be added to its Type-45 Destroyers.

Sea Ceptor's missiles do not have the range of Sea Viper's Aster 30 missiles, but they are able to protect a much wider area from air attack, one around 500 square miles, which is about the size of Greater Manchester.

As BFBS has reported , Sea Ceptor is meant to give the Navy an improved defence against common airborne threats like supersonic anti-ship missiles, fighter jets, helicopters and UAVs, though it can also intercept small water-based attack craft, something Sea Viper is not capable of.

As of December 2021, the Navy has been in the process of phasing in Sea Ceptor as a replacement for the Sea Wolf missile system, which had formerly been the Navy's Type-23 Frigates' main air defence missile system. Sea Ceptor's range of 25 kilometres is a significant increase on the 10 kilometres Sea Wolf missiles can operate at.

As well as Sea Ceptor, the Navy's Type-23 Frigates (or Duke Class) also have the Harpoon , an anti-ship surface-to-surface missile that can strike ships at ranges of up to 80 miles away (almost 130 kilometres). The almost-five-metre-long and 691-kilogram missiles fly at a speed of 0.9 Mach (i.e. just under the speed of sound) and have an explosive warhead carried to target by lightweight turbojet that accelerates the missile right after it is launched.

It uses a combination of radar and inertial guidance – which is the use of internal instruments and sensors to keep the missile on a pre-arranged flight path – to deliver it to its target.

Harpoon is due to go out of service in 2023.

The Royal Navy also has its own air-to-surface anti-ship missiles, delivered by the Wildcat HMA helicopters in the Fleet Air Arm (FAA.) This missile system is Sea Venom .

It is also manufactured by MBDA, and it was test fired by the Royal Navy for the first time in 2017 and although not due to come into service until 2022, it has been reported that Wildcat helicopters in Carrier Strike Group 21 were already equipped with the Sea Venom missiles.

Aircraft-mounted missiles also come with the Hawk T1, which both the Royal Navy's Fleet Air Arm and the RAF use for training. In both services it is capable of taking on a warfighting role as well, and when it does, it is armed with AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles .

These were developed by the US Navy for the defence of their fleet. They are infrared heat-seeking, air-to-air missiles with a high-explosive warhead for air-to-air combat between fighter aircraft.

Finally, the Royal Navy has missiles that are carried not only in the air above the surface of the sea, but two kinds of missiles that are carried below it.

The first of these is the Tomahawk IV cruise missile , carried by the Navy's Astute-class submarines .

Known within the Navy as the Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile (TLAM), this missile can be sent up and out of the water towards a target on land over 1,000 miles away. In fact, its range seems to be considerably more than that. The MOD simply says it is over 1,000 miles (or 1,600 kilometres) while the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is more precise, giving it a range of up to 2,500 kilometres (over 1,500 miles.)

Its long range aside, the Tomahawk's most impressive capability may instead be its ability to loiter for hours. In other words, like a drone, it can be sent up out of the water high into the air with a particular target programmed in, and then be set to wait before striking. In the interim, a new target may be selected.

It is also capable of sending back images of the battlefield to the submarine that launched it.

The Royal Navy's other underwater-borne missile is Trident , carried by its Vanguard-class subs .

The Trident D5 is a ballistic missile, meaning that its trajectory is arched steeply up and then downwards. The missile is guided by inertial navigation to some degree, though gravity also plays a role in delivering it to the target area.

It can travel more than 4,000 miles, or 6,400 kilometres, and up to a speed of 13,000 miles per hour according to the MOD – a speed equivalent to about 17 Mach, or 17 times the speed of sound.

While these are impressive technological feats, Trident, being the UK's nuclear deterrent , is the one type of missile above all others in the British Armed Forces that one hopes is never actually used.

A comparison of British Armed Forces missiles:

*Range can vary depending on the height at which it is launched.

Cover image: A Javelin missile fired during Exercise Heavy Strike, which took place in the Brecon Beacons in 2020 (Picture: MOD).

Related topics

• Weapons and Kit

Join Our Newsletter

Please select at least one newsletter to subscribe to:

2 Royal Irish prepare for huge Army reserves deployment

Wildcat and martlet: the deadly combination forming a ring of steel around warships, uncrewed submarines could be the future as undersea warfare heats up, most popular.

Royal Marines retain Virginia Gauntlet title after going head-to-head with US Marine Corps

Up to 55,000 former soldiers could be recalled if war breaks out, MOD says

Royal Navy's sixth Astute-class submarine officially named ahead of launch

815 naval air squadron: the home of the wildcat, 2 royal irish train for largest deployment of army reservists in 30 years, martlet: the missile that gives the wildcat its teeth, latest stories.

UK announces 2.5% GDP spending on defence, biggest strengthening for a generation

PM Sunak to appoint senior Royal Marines officer as national security adviser

Royal Air Force delivers 11 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Gaza in its seventh airdrop

Editor's picks.

From Alpha Bravo to Foxtrot: 2 Royal Irish get ready for huge Army reserves deployment

Royal Navy vessels and helicopters join allies in Norway for Exercise Tamber Shield

SAS Original Mike Sadler a true legend, says Special Forces veteran in tribute

Browse hundreds of jobs for ex-forces.

• Forces News Catch-up

A gap in the shield – the cruise missile threat to the UK

There is a growing conventional threat to the UK mainland that has received little attention and for which there is very limited defence. Adversaries are increasing cruise missile numbers and capabilities. Air and surface-launched missiles would be difficult to counter but submarine-launched cruise missiles are particularly potent. Here we consider the threat and how the UK could respond.

With no warning, on 13 June 1944, 8 people were killed near a railway bridge in the East End of London when it was hit by a new kind of weapon. The German V-1 was a crude, virtually unguided flying bomb but it heralded the era of the cruise missile (CM). Although there were some successes in shooting down V-1s, over 9,500 were launched at London and a large number hit the city, resulting in at least 6,000 deaths. The V-1 attacks were soon followed by the arrival of the world’s first ballistic missile, the V-2 rocket. Despite considerable efforts by many nations, more than 75 years later, no fully effective defence against this kind of weapon has been developed. As was the case in WWII, the best answer is to destroy the missiles before they can be used but mobile and covert launching platforms make this increasingly difficult. Besides the logistical and intelligence gathering challenge, this solution cannot mitigate against a surprise attack.

By the early 1990s, the US had perfected the guidance of cruise missiles to a point where accuracy could be measured to within a few metres. The Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) used in the first Gulf War demonstrated this ‘wonder weapon’ to the world. Precise targeting of military sites and command centres helped shorten the war while minimising civilian casualties / ‘collateral damage’. At least 2,100 TLAMs have been fired in anger since 1991, at Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Syria and against various terrorist training camps. The RN acquired a stock of TLAM from the US in 1998 and these submarine-launched cruise missiles (SLCM) remain an important UK capability, in service with Trafalgar and Astute-class boats.

While the US may have refined and demonstrated the value of precision cruise missiles in combat, Russian industry was not far behind. With a vibrant and diverse missile development programme, the Russians have achieved parity and exceeded Western missile technology in some areas. The Chinese are on a similar path and Western nations are behind in their attempts to field the new generation of hypersonic missiles. Export versions of sophisticated cruise missiles are now within reach of many smaller nations and their proliferation presents an increasingly complex threat across the globe.

Exposed underbelly

Britain developed the world’s first integrated air defence system in the 1930s which proved to be one of the main keys to victory in the aerial defence of the UK in 1940. A chain of radar stations would send the location of incoming raids to a central command centre that could best position fighter aircraft to intercept enemy bombers.

Although a fraction the size, UK air defence today works on a very similar model. A series of Radar Heads provide coverage of UK airspace which are fed to the Air Surveillance and Control System (ASACS) at RAF Boulmer. A handful of Typhoon aircraft are held at readiness on Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) to launch against any intrusion or suspicious aircraft detected nearby or entering UK Airspace. The Typhoon is exceptionally effective when up against small numbers of manned combat aircraft but may struggle to detect small low-flying targets, although its AMRAAM and Meteor missiles are designed to engage CM.

The CM has the natural advantage of being smaller and far harder to detect than manned platforms. Flight profiles may vary but at least in the terminal phase, the weapon will adopt a low-level terrain-hugging trajectory making it difficult to detect by ground-based radars. To kill the CM it must first be detected and when sea-skimming or terrain-following only sophisticated airborne or space-based sensors able to distinguish against background clutter have much hope of providing coverage over a large area.

The sophisticated nature of logistic support for modern weapons platforms makes their bases and infrastructure expensive and difficult to disperse or duplicate. There are many facilities that represent a ‘single point of failure’. For example, by centralising the RN’s entire submarine force at Faslane, a few well-aimed missiles could quickly remove the ability to sustain submarine operations. Only a tiny handful of UK’s military sites have below-ground-bunkers or hardened shelters. The vast majority of buildings that support the RN, Army and RAF are above above-ground and even underground facilities may be vulnerable to modern penetrating munitions.

There are 3 main types of scenario for CM strikes. The terror attack – such an assault might not necessarily be a prelude to full-scale war but be a kind of state-sponsored high-grade terrorism. This might be designed to cause fear and chaos through mass casualty events, perhaps by striking sports venues, railway stations, schools or hospitals. The economic attack – designed to interfere with economic activity by striking at transport, utilities and government infrastructure. For example, knocking out just a few railway and motorway bridges could cause substantial supply problems for an economy that runs on a ‘just enough, just in time’ system. The vulnerable docks and ports of the UK are also critical to the economy, for example, Felixstowe alone handles 48% of the country’s container trade. Destroying a few power stations (nuclear or otherwise) would be another effective way to bring a nation to a standstill with widespread blackouts. The military attack would be a prelude to full-scale conflict, using CM initially to disable radars and air defence systems, making it easier for conventional aircraft to follow on with attacks airfields and naval infrastructure.

The almost universal vulnerability to cruise missiles was clearly demonstrated in September 2019 when, despite having sophisticated US-supplied air defence assets in place, in Saudi Arabia was unable to prevent an attack by cruise missile and ‘armed drones’. The Abqaiq oil processing facility in Buqyaq was heavily damaged and this single strike by Iranian-sponsored Houthi rebels halved Saudi oil output and reduced world production by 5%.

• Battle Cruiser

Archers and arrows

Submarine-launched Cruise Missiles are of the most immediate concern for the UK and are one of the prime reasons why investment in ASW has never been more important. SLCMs launched close to the coast offer reduced warning time or chance of detection than if air or land-launched. The Russian navy fields a variety of SSKs, SSNs and SSGNs that are all armed with modern SLCM. On paper, the Oscar class SSGNs are most formidable armed with up to 72 missiles. It should be noted that an almost stationary SSGN launching a sustained volley of SLCMs would rapidly become vulnerable to detection. It would be tactically advisable to launch just one or two missiles at a time and then go deep and evade before re-positioning some distance away to make further attacks.

The two Russian naval CMs of particular note are Kalibr and Zircon. The Kalibr (NATO name SS-N-30A ‘Sizzler’) is a modern Tomahawk equivalent with an anti-shipping variant and a land-attack version as well as various export models. With an estimated range between 1,500 to 2,500 km, it has become the mainstay of the Russian Navy’s strike capabilities and has been demonstrated for the benefit of Western observers and potential export customers against targets in Syria.

If it works as advertised, the hypersonic (Mach 8-9) 3M22 Zircon (NATO name SS-N-33) cruise missile represents a major escalation in the level of threat. This weapon can fly a low level or follow a semi-ballistic trajectory for longer ranges. It is uncertain, but its extraordinary speed may make it almost invisible to conventional radar and extremely difficult to intercept using existing missile defences. Zircon will initially be carried by Russian warships but may also arm SSGNs and potentially poses a serious threat to both ships and land targets.

The Russians have sensibly elected to design even their smallest modern combatants to be CM-capable. The 950-tonne Buyan-M corvettes have 8 strike-length VLS cells capable of launching Kalibr (The main image above shows RFS Grad Sviyazhsk class firing from the Caspian Sea against Syrian targets, October 2015). In contrast to the majority of European combatants, this provides great tactical versatility for the Russian fleet which may not be able to prevail in a direct naval confrontation with NATO but can put at risk both land and sea targets from considerable range.

In 2010 Russian arms manufacturer Morinformsystem-Agat JSC revealed a containerised version of the Club-K cruise missile (a forerunner of the Kalibr). Four missiles are hidden out of sight horizontally in a standard shipping container until the tubes are hydraulically raised for firing. Transported on an innocent-looking merchant ship, this is a potential way to mount a sudden attack on unsuspecting warships or land targets. Which nations may have purchased or operate Club-K or equivalent is unclear, but the potential for asymmetric attack or first strikes is obvious. Since thousands of container ships ply the world on a daily basis this modern-day ‘Q-ship’ is a perfect disguise, although in peacetime raises some legal questions about the neutral status of merchant shipping.

Most cruise missiles have interchangeable payloads and can potentially carry nuclear warheads or conventional explosives. In a sub-nuclear conflict, the scale of devastation caused by each missile could also be vastly multiplied by adding chemical, biological or radiological (‘dirty bomb’) contaminants. As the Russian government appears to be quite willing to authorise the careless use of Novichok nerve agent to attack its own citizens, it can be assumed they would have few scruples about employing this appalling kind of assault on their adversaries.

Although the most immediate CM threat to the UK would appear to be from Russia, the Chinese navy is rapidly becoming a global force. It is not inconceivable that in future their CM-equipped submarines and carrier strike groups could be deployed within range of Europe. Using conventional delivery means, Iran lacks the ability to hit European targets but CMs placed covertly on container ships could provide an opportunity for modest asymmetric attacks.

The slender shield

At sea, the RN’s Aster and Sea Ceptor systems are designed to cope with CM missile attack, in effect warships move around with their own integrated air defence bubble. With sufficient warning, RN vessels could be positioned offshore in an attempt to protect the mainland from CM but warship numbers are limited, the threat could come from almost any direction, and their radar horizon does not extend far. Situational awareness of high-level UK airspace is good, (so long as the vulnerable radar heads are destroyed by CM) but only sophisticated airborne or satellite-based radar could provide the wide coverage need to track inbound CM. The RAF has just 4 E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft (being replaced by 5 Wedgetail AEW1), way short of the numbers that would be needed to provide round the clock overwatch of the whole of the UK.

Assuming CM could be detected, targeting data would need to be rapidly passed to a nearest hard-kill system. Unfortunately, such assets are very limited. There are no surface to air systems (SAM) permanently allocated to the defence of the UK mainland, the only British territory with any kind of integrated radar and SAM system is the Falkland Islands.

The British Army is about to commission its £148M Sky Sabre Air defence system, which utilises the same soft-launch CAAM employed by the RN’s Sea Ceptor. Sky Sabre represents the UK’s best hope of countering CM in flight. Manufacturers MBDA, claim its RF seeker has excellent clutter rejection capabilities enabling it to engage cruise missiles, UAVs and guided munitions. CAAM has an official effective range of 25km although it is widely believed to be much greater. Detection is provided by the high-definition Saab Giraffe Agile Multi-Beam (AMB) 3-D radar mounted on an extending mast to ‘see’ above trees or buildings so as to maximise its range against low-level targets. Israeli experts, Rafael are providing the Modular, Integrated C4I Air & Missile Defense System (MIC4AD) link the sensor to the missile cells and provides command and control. Sky Sabre is mobile and easy to conceal, units can operate on a standalone basis or be networked together to target over-the-horizon threats.

Sky Sabre will typically be employed to protect Army formations or forward airbases and the 24 sets being purchased are a fraction of what would be required to establish a protective umbrella over the many vulnerable military and civilian sites in the UK. To provide comprehensive in-depth defence, particularly at high-value sites or where radar range is constrained by the environment, Sky Sabre might need to be backed with additional short-range systems such as radar-directed canons or Starstreak HVM batteries.

Defend or deter?

Since the Soviets exploded their first nuclear weapon in 1949, the long-standing nuclear threat to the UK has been mitigated by the ability to respond in kind. If serious about countering the lethal, but non-nuclear CM threat, there are essentially two expensive choices. A defensive strategy would require the development of an extensive multi-tier integrated air defence system (IADS). A more credible conventional deterrent would demand a big increase in lethality, stocks and delivery systems of UK CM so any adversary contemplating an attack would understand they would face an equally devastating response.

The defensive strategy comes with several significant drawbacks besides the considerable cost. However well prepared, multi-layered and sophisticated, the advantage always lies with the attacker, able to choose the time and route for the strikes. It is likely at least some missiles will still find their targets and this is especially true, as hypersonic CM, hypersonic glide vehicles and ballistic missiles proliferate. There would also be a major political and perception problem if a large number of SAM batteries started to spring up all over the country. Like so many facets of defence, it would be a hard sell to persuade the public that the cost and upheaval was justified against an unseen or little-understood threat. A nation literally bristling with missile batteries around cities and civilian sites is not a good look, at least until the outbreak of hostilities.

To act as a deterrent, currently, the UK has two LACM in service – the Tomahawk UGM-109 SLCM and the Storm Shadow ALCM. TLAM can only be launched from the RN’s very small SSN force. The Astute class has storage for up to 36 TLAM or torpedoes, although no submarine captain is likely to want to go on patrol without at least a few Spearfish. UK stocks probably number about 100 rounds of Block III and IV TLAM. Assuming two boats, can be on operational patrol at any one time, theoretically, the UK could launch an ‘all out-effort’ of about 50 TLAMS before returning for reloading and a second and final wave of another 50. TLAM is relatively old and is being superseded by the stealthier JASSM and highly accurate SLAM-ER, although the US can’t bring itself to close the production line quite yet. Such claims should be treated with much scepticism but Russia says that its air defence systems installed in Syria have shot down 71 of 103 CM launched by the US, UK and France.

Unusually for UK complex weapons, the stock of Storm Shadow is relatively healthy, thought to be around 900, although some were expended in Libya and Syria. Storm Shadow has proved to be as effective as TLAM but can only be launched by the RAF Typhoon and has a warhead optimised for bunker-busting. The weapon has a range of around 500km but the non-stealthy Typhoon would be very much at risk if attempting to penetrate the advanced IADS that covers western Russia. Weapon range is a critical factor when contemplating a strike on many targets. To reach Moscow, one of the world’s better-protected cities, would require an SSN to enter the unfavourable operating conditions in the Baltic Sea to launch a TLAM.

The Anglo-French FCASW (Future Cruise and Anti-Ship Weapon) project is currently underway and is supposed to produce a new cruise missile to replace Storm Shadow and solve the RN’s anti-ship missile problem. There already appears to be a slight divergence between the French, who favour a larger, hypersonic solution, while the UK is more partial to smaller, slower and more stealthy designs. A 2018 Parliamentary report congratulated everyone on this great multi-national co-operation and its importance to industry but unfortunately this project will not deliver any kind of operational capability for at least a decade. While the Russians, Indians and Chinese are about to field Hypersonic weapons, the leisurely FCASW project demonstrates the complacency in European capitals about the growing missile gap.

If the full potential of UK Carrier Strike capability against peer adversaries is ever to be realised, then the F-35 needs to be equipped with a long-range stand-off weapon. There are no plans to integrate Storm Shadow on the jet. F-35B will very heavily reliant on its stealth if forced get up close with adversary air defences to deliver its current selection of short-range weapons.

When the first Type 26 frigate finally becomes operational in 2027 the RN will, at last, have 24 Mk41 VLS cells on a surface combatant that could be fitted with TLAM, child of FCASW or another LACM. At present, there are no plans in place to purchase any weapon for the VLS which may initially enter service armed with fresh air. In the current climate, it is also hard to imagine the Type 45 destroyers will ever be retrofitted with 16 strike-length VLS cells that their design could still accommodate.

It is interesting to speculate about who should lead an effort to redress the UK CM vulnerability. Should it be the RN as any attack will either originate from the sea or will have to cross it? Is it one for the RAF in-tray as it is primarily an air defence problem or should it become an Army priority to take a bigger lead in defending the mainland? Whatever the solution, it is another complex multi-dimensional threat that should be considered as part of the on-going defence review. Now as much as any time since WWII, perhaps the best defence remains NATO unity. If adversaries believe that all NATO members will continue to uphold the principle that “an attack on one is an attack on all” then the deterrent effect of the combined weight of firepower is the best hope for peace.

Related articles

The best defence is always a good offence. If state actors know we can hit them back where it hurts then the chances of them firing first are diminished.

I’d say buy more Sky Sabre sets that can be stationed near military and Government sites if needed, but then focus on projecting power. Interim solutions to Perseus, a new force of SSKs or unmanned subs as force multipliers, anti-ship weapons for our frigates, Typhoons and P8s. Plus more P8s.

We cannot have gold plated solutions to every threat but we can reduce all threats by packing a greater punch ourselves.

Since we don’t intend to attack Russia, one can argue that a defensive posture for your land and, to an extent, air forces is valid for the UK and Europe. Outside of the Deterrent, Russia would have to overcome both your in depth weapon stockpiles and delivery / support infrastructure. However, since no-one owns the oceans, for the most part, such that initial response and re-supply are the major naval concerns, then offensive capability becomes the best chance for survival. Hence aircraft carriers and submarines, suitably equipped, are your primary assets within a naval hierarchy.

I agree about needing more Sky Sabres, but I’d upgrade them with CAMM-ER and Aster 30 (and a longer-ranged radar if required), backed up with the Skyshield air defence system. Fixed SAM sites could be backed up by MANTIS.

Our ships definitely need a replacement for Harpoon ASAP. There doesn’t seem to be any sense of urgency about getting one though. My preference would be maybe 6 LRASMs and then either NSM or RBS-15 Mk3/Mk4. Or ideally a mix of all 3 (assuming they can all fit in Mk41 cells), because each has its pros and cons. Anything would be an improvement on Harpoon though. If I had to choose just one though, I’d probably go with the NSM because it’s stealthy and presumably cheaper than LRASM. Do you know what it costs btw?

Our Typhoons and Poseidons should really be able to carry LRASM and NSM imo so they’d have a good chance of being able to take out Russian ships approaching the UK if needed.

I’d also like to see an extremely long-ranged VL anti-sub missile be developed that can be fired from Mk41 cells on Type 26s, i.e. longer-ranged than any existing enemy torpedoes so that Type 26s can take out enemy subs beyond the range at which they can fire torpedoes. Combined with new anti-ship missiles, this would provide another effective offensive weapon, which RN ships have lacked for a long time.

And we need to speed up getting Meteor fitted to the F-35Bs. This isn’t due to happen until 2024. Why the delay?

With new anti-ship missiles, new long-ranged anti-sub missiles and Meteor on the F-35Bs, a carrier group would be far more survivable than it is now since it would have new ways to take out subs & ships to complement the Astutes and ASW Merlins, plus F-35Bs with Meteors are far more likely to hit enemy aircraft than they are with AIM-120s. And when they can’t carry much ordnance internally, having air-to-air missiles with a high probability of hitting what they’re fired at is vital.

I wonder though if it would make sense to maybe fly 2 F-35Bs in stealth mode (i.e. carrying ordnance internally) and then have 2 F-35Bs flying dozens of miles to the rear carrying missiles both internally and externally. These 2 F-35s flying to the rear would effectively be Meteor trucks for the forward deployed F-35s, which would make the F-35s more survivable. I think the US is going to use Super Hornets as missile trucks for the F-35Cs, but obviously we can’t do that because the F-35B is the only fixed-wing aircraft on the carriers.

I’ve thought for a long time that we would benefit from diesel-electric AIP subs. Something like the German Type 212. They’d be ideal for home waters defence (English Channel, GI-UK gap, off Faslane). They’d also be good off Gibraltar, to patrol the Falklands and possibly in chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and the Mandeb Strait. Throw some uparmed Rivers into the mix (either uparmed Batch 2s or ideally new Batch 3s) and we could have a fairly credible level of defence without breaking the bank and we could have quite a lot of both subs and Batch 3 Rivers. If we don’t currently have the capability to build them, then we should create it imo and it would supply jobs for many years to come. I’d like to see us regularly churn out out diesel-electric AIP subs and Batch 3 Rivers over the coming years. There may even be an export market for them if we can make them cheap enough and well armed enough.

And developing and/or buying drones is definitely something we should vigorously pursue: UAVs, USVs and UUVs.

Imo suicide drones are the most realistic way of taking out Russian and Chinese mobile SAM launchers and mobile anti-ship missile launchers: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4760/meet-israels-suicide-squad-of-self-sacrificing-drones?iid=sr-link1

You were saying we dont plan on attacking Russia, what about when the attack us,

Sky Sabre’s not capable of shooting down ballistic missiles or manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles, is it? You’d need a more high-end system I’d have thought.

Diesel-electric AIP subs and UUVs make perfect sense imo to take out ships and subs. The subs could also target land-based missile launchers. Well assuming they can be found in the first place and assuming the missiles are fast enough to take them out before they scoot after shooting.

It’s kind of absurd that the Storm Shadow will not be integrated onto the F-35B. A 5th gen stealth combat jet with a low observable cruise missile would be an ideal pairing one would think, especially given that both systems are already in service.

It would also increase the effective strike range of the UKs carrier strike force by hundreds of km’s. I also think it shouldn’t be an “either or” between which service gets CM capabililty. Ideally the RAFand the Navy (and probably even the army) should have some capability in this area.

I suspect installation on the F35B will be opposed bt the RAF who are keen to keep Typhoon relevant to the stand off strike mission to protect Typhoon numbers.

RAF needs a shake up of its place and thinking. Its privileged to go to sea nowadays, so it needs to start thinking about the maritime role and allow surface strike from the F35’s. Or does it think its role is to flounce around every now and then and look pretty on the flight deck. Can someone enlighten us? It was privileged to get the Bucaneers FAA. Did they have a surface strike role under RAF colours?

Initially I think they did until the Sea Eagle ASM was withdrawn from service.

It’s a mistake for the RAF to own the F35Bs the Navy need for carriers. This middle is what left the RN with shit aircraft in 1939.

The aircraft are the carriers’ primary weapon system and need to belong to the Navy.

Yes Bucaneers did surface strike in the RAF.

So goes the argument the RAF must continue with that role. At present we are hideously weak in offensive weaponry. We need to agree two new missiles with the French Perseus hypersonic and cruise. Doing this you could have a range of options.

Yes. Our forces are short across the board of things that go bang.

Aircraft carriers are obsolete and the nation has been sold 2 pups

I agree. What can a RN carrier group currently do? It’s got next to no offensive capability apart from the Astutes and the RN doesn’t have enough of them. Plus they could do with anti-ship missiles, IDAS missiles and Torbuster.

Also Poseidons with LRASMs, Storm Shadows, torpedoes and depth charges would be far more effective than a current RN carrier group, wouldn’t be vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, torpedoes and sea mines and could fire missiles from stand-off ranges beyond the range of ship-based SAM systems and S-400s. Hell, fit the Poseidons with Meteors and BriteCloud as well.

It doesn’t make financial sense to replace Typhoon with F-35s (at £190m a pop), we’re only buying a few of them and they’re not a threat to Typhoon (a platform we already own). Typhoon will eventually need replacing when the airframes wear out and is planned to be replaced by something like Tempest. So why would the RAF try to stop the integration on F-35?

My guess is the cost of integration was high and the thing could only be carried externally which kind of messes with the whole stealth thing (even if the missile is in its flight configuration relatively low observable, it’s still going to have a significant penalty to the aircraft’s RCA).

A F-35B armed with S.S. will most likely be too heavy to takeoff in the short takeoff mode from the deck of a QE carrier. Unless with a reduced fuel load at takeoff. Another reason for AAR!

The F-35b total weapons load is 6800 kg. One Storm Shadow weighs 1300kg, so an F-35b could carry two of them and still not use more than half it’s maximum payload take off weight. It’s hard to find the dimensions of the internal weapon bays but Storm Shadows could certainly be carried externally and, if fired from long range (max range at Lo-Lo profile is 560 km), would not compromise the stealth capabilities of the aircraft as it would be well outside the engagement range of even the S-400 (max range 400 km).

So, given the F-35b combat radius of 935km and a Storm Shadow max range of 560 km, the UK carrier strike group could theoretically engage targets out to ~1500 km.

A valuable asset for any maritime task force commander which, as Duker mentioned, has now been cancelled I am sure for no other reason than to save a few pennies. Sometimes you have to wonder which country these decision makers actually for.

I read somewhere that there was a 600Kg weight limit on each ext. pylon on F-35B, due to the STOVL mode. I assumed that included the warpon bays full of AAM’s. Due to the warpon bays are about 4m in length, so S.S. is 5m they will fit on the ext. Pylons.

The RAF do have plenty of a stock pile of Storm Shadow, I agreed.

“ It’s kind of absurd that the Storm Shadow will not be integrated onto the F-35B. “

There were plans for this capability, but as usual they were dropped

The Storm Shadow is 1300Kgs each in weight, so a pair is 2600Kgs, this total is without your AA missiles.

<i>’  It should be noted that an almost stationary SSGN launching a sustained volley of SLCMs would rapidly become vulnerable to detection.'</i> Your confidence that we could find and attack a submarine that had launched a surprise attack on us is admirable, if slightly unconvincing. If CMs were launched from the Atlantic and flew over Ireland, it would take ages to narrow down their origin.

Let’s get anti air missiles in Ireland now! I’m sure they won’t mind ?

We could put some in the north to protect Faslane.

And our nuclear weapons based in the mountains around faslane.

An early warning radar on the west coast of Ireland would be the first priority. Also built on high ground. Maybe a land based Sampson type radar?

The dutchs did the same with the SMART-L Radar.

Puting a Radar Head on Rockall would be great.

Not really Cam! The Saxa Vord radar on Shetland is over 900 ft above sea level, on 20 acres of ground. There is radar at Benbecula also on high ground. These types of radar are to detect high flying aircraft approaching UK airspace.

To see the horizon of whole country, you need to be at around 70000ft.

You can see some amazing sights from a U2!

“Your confidence that we could find and attack a submarine that had launched a surprise attack on us is admirable, if slightly unconvincing. If CMs were launched from the Atlantic and flew over Ireland, it would take ages to narrow down their origin.”

Yeah, absent the missiles are detected when they are launched there is no way to know where they came from, a missile path can have a number of way-points.

Exactly, especially if those missile were targeted at major military ports, radar stations and the new P8 base.

As already noted, the offensive/reprisal option would be where I’d put my money. It has far wider application than simply defending the home islands, which makes it the more cost effective solution. As far as who should take the lead, my money is on the RN, with the stipulation that any purchased system should be air launch capable (whether Typhoon, F-35, or Tempest).

Solid logic, but by giving the RN the lead even the defensive option is significantly more viable and useful as well. A destroyer is a self-contained area air defence network, orders of magnitude more capable than a mobile defence system like Sky Sabre, and capable of being deployed “up threat” of the UK in the North Atlantic. Intercepting weapons during the launch phase is far more practical than hoping land based radars pick them up a dozen miles off the coast.

Plus, there are the obvious other uses of a destroyer, compared to the single mission profile of an air defence battery.

Very fair point, although from that I infer that you are proposing we expand the destroyer part of the fleet? I’m certainly not against that per se, but it’s probably one of the more expensive options. Getting ourselves a nice shiny (stealth?) CM that we can fit to any and all of our escorts, as well as launch from our aircraft, is cheaper and less manppower intensive- which is a major issue for us at present. That said, I think what you suggest is what we would do in a war situation (I’m assuming Russia): reposition our T45s from global to home, move them up and out towards GIUK/Norway, and have the others cruising somewhere up there with the carrier battle group as well. The key thing about that plan would be to get the upgraded Aster 30s so we have an ABM capability, which is a bit of a chink in the armour at the moment unfortunately- especially with the newer anti-ship ballistic missiles that the Chinese have.

My approach would be to expand the fleet as a whole. Obviously destroyers are the best fit for a missile shield, but frigates deployed across the North Atlantic on ASW duties also provide valuable air defence coverage.

I’m certainly in favour of uparming everything though. I’d vote for the cheapest option of a bulk buy of NSM and stick it on literally everything: Lightning, Typhoon, Poseidon, T45, T26, T31. Obviously “cheapest” is relative, but bolt on launcher are cheaper and quicker to install than Mk41, and it’s enough of a capability to show we’re serious until Perseus comes online.

Long term, I agree with you that it’d be nice to have more escorts- but I’m thinking that will be in the “Perseus” timeframe, i.e. once that misile is in service. For the more immediate situation, where we don’t have enough crew for the escorts we have let alone additional vessels, I’d agree with NSM. Although I think Gunbuster may have said that Harpoon and the RBS-15 are the frontrunners in the current competition. I still prefer the NSM from the perspective of having the secondary land attack option, and the potential for mounting on aircraft (although that may be techncially a different version). Either way, 8 cannister launched ASMs are a respectable capability. Most NATO escorts only pack 8, whether in VLS or cannisters, and the latest flight Burkes don’t carry any at all according to a couple of articles I’ve read.

Actually, scratch that, I’ve had a look and the RBS-15 has land attack and air-launch capabilities too, with a greater range and heavier warhead compared to NSM. It isn’t stealth, but otherwise I rather like it- I can see why the RN is taking a look at it.

You would need a lot of destroyers and frigates spread out all over, because even a radar at a height of 25m above the water, the distance to the horizon is only about 12 mile. I would be very difficult to cruise missiles from space.

I think you would need Synthetic-aperture radar (SAR) aircraft airborne continuously over the North Sea and Eastern Atlantic Ocean.

To achieve total coverage, without a doubt you’d need pretty significant numbers of ships. However, even a fairly modest increase in forces deployed closer to the Arctic submarine bastions dramatically reduces the directions an attack could be launched from. Critically, it also increases the risk for the attacking launch platforms, meaning they’ll want to launch from further away to decrease the chance of a counterstrike. Closing the GIUK gap is now more about limiting attack vectors than protecting troop convoys.

A permanent airborne AEW system would be fantastic, especially if it’s networked with escorts in northern waters. Unfortunately as it stands, the 5 Wedgetails are probably going to be used elsewhere instead of for missile defence.

I wonder if it’s worth looking into airship drones for AEW? Not just in the situation you’re referring to but to protect a carrier group? They could have solar panels and use wind turbines to recharge their batteries. I’d have thought airships could potentially have very long endurance assuming they’re robust enough to withstand strong winds.

Some corrections I mean it would be very difficult to detect cruise missiles from space.

And enough SAR aircraft to give continuance coverage of the airspace.

The T45 Sampson is actually about 40m above sea level

According to my calculator, the distance to the horizon would be only 22km(14M).

Why don’t we use large airships for AEW? They’d have great endurance.

Except (1) we don’t have many destroyers and (2) we could do with SAMP/T in addition to Sky Sabre. It would also make sense to buy MANTIS guns to protect Sky Sabre and SAMP/T. TWISTER will provide yet another important layer of ship-based and land-based defence but that’s a decade off yet. In the meantime maybe we should buy THAAD, SM-3 and SM-6?

Flip the article and you can add in any country by name that the UK and USA have thrown CMs at be they Air, Surface or Sub surface launched. Even if you have a good Integrated Air Defence System its relatively easy to have CMs fly around known air defence hot spots or to have 3 or 4 missiles pinwheel in from all points of the compass to make an air defence engagement harder.

Unless you are going to spend the entire UK defence budget on AD systems you are not going to stop an attack. What you do need to be able to do is manage any damage and get the systems and assets back online as soon as possible to return the capability to the commanders.

we should have backups for most major sites and millitary instillation like radar points ect, like faslane, we should have Plymouth keeping the submarine homing capability. It’s crazy how little depth In numbers of almost everything we have in our millitary these days. But we do have some things to be proud of.

Now what is it they say about pride? I forget…

That’s what some don’t get about the US. It isn’t just the numbers of teeth arm troops and platforms, but the breadth of their supporting arms, and the depth of their ‘war stores’. And even they are concerned about numbers and capabilities.

Exactly X, we couldn’t fight a large war, we haven’t the equipment for starters, and that takes years to acquire and train on.

It would take about a decade to generate an armoured brigade from scratch.

That’s why FFBNW is dangerous. This isn’t the 1930s. We won’t have 5 years or so lead in. We need platforms armed to the teeth. So when there is a coming together our crews have a chance. And hopefully ‘equality’ in capabilities will lead to a rapid deescalation by politicians and diplomats. Years of long drawn out industrial war are behind us.

It troubles me that we can’t scale our equipment and personnel more easily. Defence experts always allude to capabilities being lost but never say what….. It’s a mess.

For an air defence site to be known, it would need to be fixed, wouldn’t it? Mobile SAM sites can move around making knowing where they are very difficult even with geosynchronous satellites.

It looks to me like our top brass must wake up with their fingers crossed and hope the balloon doesn’t go up. If only we had that extra 13bn pa to spend on such luxuries as home defence. Oh wait a minute! Meanwhile over at the Foreign Office we have precisely that kind of money in a draw marked s.dd.ng fa.

It would only take a few cruise missiles into the generating halls of our power stations to ‘take us out’. If half were hit it would cripple the country.

Presumably we’ve just fielded Typhoon to the Black Sea in response to a Russian maritime exercise in order to provide CM defence, since the aircraft cannot harm the vessels.

To decrease the chances of war prepare and arm for war, then in turn that’ll Make state aggressors Think again.

But we have to stop pissing about and properly equip and arm the British millitary, we have cut too much from our millitary and there looks to be even more slicing of the bone in the near future sadly! If smaller nations can build and equip themselves properly then so can Britain, cut overseas aid in half and that gives us an extra 7 billion every year..vanishing the self made defence black hole! Which is just there to justify cuts.

Yes. Our government chooses not to spend on defence. It isn’t that we can’t afford it. And we could afford without taking morning for what are deemed essential services. 5 years borrowing spent on defence instead of ‘foreign aid’ and we could requip the Army (which is desperately needed), and make sure RN and RAF platforms get essential equipment. (And fill some glaring gaps like a 9th T26 and 6th T31, with the latter getting sonar etc).

Would it not be better to use the aid budget more effectively to prevent conflict or denude support for non state actors who could use such weapons to harm us? It doesn’t have to be a zero sum game, could we not afford effective defence and overseas aid if we reformed the taxation system to better generate revenue? Or perhaps we need to cut elsewhere?

We don’t have a budget for foreign aid. We borrow the money. We have no spare money. If we are prepared to waste money on aid, we should be prepared to borrow for things we need.

I am in no mood for your fantasies about aid.

We’ll aid served a purpose and is altruistic as well. The issue is the circle of who you care about is limited to your immediate community and/or nation I suspect. Mine extends further in part because of the people from different nations I have known and cared about over the years and also because I realise that in/out group bias does division and discord to the benefit of few . Most people have similar fundamental goals, they want to get on with their lives and ensure they and their families are happy. Why should a national border, which you had no say in, dictate who you should care for or not?

I presume you support the existence of NATO? If so you logically support a form of aid (in terms of military power paid for my the British tax payer) being used to protect the interests of others?

The nation state is an artificial construct of relatively recent origin. The historiography largely supports the view that nationalism became accelerated thanks to the Napoleonic wars, albeit its origins predate that period. It is the 19th century that crystallised many of the National boundaries we know today along with corresponding national identities. This is summed up by Massimo d’Azeglio‘s (Onetime PM of Sardinia) famous quote ‘We have made Italy. Now we must make Italians’.

I suspect I have for more on common with friends and acquaintances around the world than you in terms of educational level, politics and interests (beyond the field of defence where at least there is common ground).

I haven’t read this. ^

But I haven’t downvoted you either.

No problem, same here. Let’s draw a line under this and keep talking about frigates 🙂

I really enjoyed your perspective. Thank you.

Thank you 🙂

I wonder if there are any hard kill land based defences that we could acquire to protect key installations albeit in limited numbers (considering budget limitations). Any one know the relative effectiveness of Patriot, Iron Dome, land based Aster 30 etc. against cruise missiles? Would procuring another 6-9 air defence destroyers (type 45 or otherwise) to generate 2-3 hulls for UK defence be another option? After all the missiles would have to come cover sea to reach UK targets? To offset the above cost do we need as many Typhoons or is it better to kill the archer rather than the arrow?

The modern archer can shoot many arrows! Yes, find and watch the archer, really to kill it!

If that’s the case offence is the best defence. We need to stuff as many cruise missiles into/onto our ships/vessels/aircraft to respond in kind. However, that may not deter non state or semi actors. Thankfully, they should have limited access to cruise missiles and therefore a limited set of AD systems around key sites should suffice to counter the limited set of arrows they can throw out way?

I was thinking that, in the event the world gets nasty, a super cheap way to increase air-defence hulls would be to up-arm the River Class as mini air-defence corvettes. Replace the main mounting with phalanx or something like the Rapidfire Naval CTA (not sure if that’s possible), plus better radar and containerised SeaCeptor. Again I’m not advocating playing fantasy fleet right now, but if in future we do need to up-arm the navy quickly that’s relatively realistic. The River Class are apparently too noisy for ASW and too small to carry load outs for land attack. Set up like this they could screen vital ports while being difficult for any enemy CM to take out, unlike a static land based system. They could also be used for littoral air defence. Wouldn’t be too hard to give them a little extra punch with twin 30mm and Martlet and they’d be able to assist in the Gulf or elsewhere.

Any actual serious threat to our “Small Island” would result in much scrabbling around trying to either find answers or Scapegoats . For too long now our Governments have Ignored the Basics of what made this Country so resilient and effective as a world Beating Force for Good. Millions of ordinary folk have paid the ultimate price over Centuries to keep our shores safe from Invasion. Not to sure If people will be quick to Die to help save the UK in the near Future.

It is a very alarmist article. In it, I missed the point about why someone would lob cm’s at us?

As in all things, call signs state we would have advance warning of a threat and prepare.

Now, knowing Russia with China and Mutley plans to co-ordinate an attack on the UK in 12 weeks leaves me non-plussed with how we build enough platforms to defend the UK in that time-span.

We need a solution!

Let’s join a neutral, non-aligned country who are a force for good in this world! Let’s ask Ireland if we can join them.

Some people don’t do black humour.

Truly scary !!!!!!!!

The key thing to note here is how the Russians have invested in missile technology and the relevant launch platforms to make them as effective as possible. We are years behind, why? Complete lack of investment and spending on Defence, getting involved in wars that have eaten large amounts of our pitiful defence budget. In Russia the top man ensures the necessary money is spent. In the west ill informed politicians ensure exactky the opposite!

The Russians aren’t coming. It wouldn’t be in their interest to destabilise us or Western Europe even further. We are doing a fantastic job of that ourselves.

The Russians have weapons. We have weapons. The French have. The US has them. China has them. And so on.

What gets me is that cruise missiles are just so cheap. We could have a stock of a few thousand easily if wanted to do it. T45 should have been build with an extra VLS just for cruise missiles. As should have T26. And the Astutes should have VLS too.

Our problem isn’t so much the missiles but sensors and systems. For detection we could invest perhaps in an OTH systems like the Australians and French have. Doesn’t cost much and is easily updated year and year. And more AEW aircraft. TAS patrol ships around our coast. But where we Brits really miss out is ‘recce birds’. Everybody has them, even the Germans and Turks, but we don’t. We rely on the US for all that sort of intelligence. That means we could be ‘blinded’ if they chose to do so. So even if we had lots of missiles we don’t have a targeting system.

I see the childish down voting has started early here at ‘Sink the Royal Navy’.

Clown site for a clown world.

I just had a Downvote too, Well actually, It’s just another to add to the collection.

If I said some utterly ludicrous then yes down vote. But here it is done out of spite. A part from saying the Russians ain’t coming I don’t think I said anything too out of place. Some sick thickos here are desperate for war.

I see the mystery down voter has made another pass.

And the French Nostradamus OTH system………..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDnPS6U5JX4&ab_channel=nostradamusradar

didn’t track MH370 though.

It was not in operational mode in the timeframe concerned. It does not operate 24×7 unless there is a military or intel reason to do so. Had the Malaysian civilian & military authorities picked up on the irregularities & been actively co-operating together, an urgent military request to Australia may have seen that rectified in time to be useful.

I am quite sure that 4 AEWs can do the job just fine. Maybe there is the need to buy some more P8s…And arm the type45 and aircraft with some serious anti ship missiles to deter SLCM platforms. Plus in the medium term there is a need to create layered A2/AD bubbles maybe with centurion- Starstreak HVM- Sky Sabre- aster 30 block 2. As for the crushing response the F35 /Typhoon SPEAR 3/SPEAR EW in Sead roles first, then followed by ahuge Typhoon/storm shadow attack is quite a devastating strike. But may be the storm shadow is beginning to show his age.. slow with no serious stealth design clearly needs an upgrade. I think everything is going in the right direction for now, but there is a lot of work to do yet.

Didn’t the MoD but 900 or so Storm Shadow? Expensive and short range.

200 miles or so less than B3 cruise missile; other versions of the latter have much longer ranges. And we bought many more than the French.

It depends if we have deployed a force to mainland Europe & want to defend that too we simply do not have enough assets – Aster is not even under consideration at this time we aren’t participating in its upgrades & we haven’t joined Italy in CAMM-ER program everything is on the Typhoon in reality & we don’t exactly have massive numbers especially now earmarked to ground attack. The army own sky sabre and are pretty much going to need them to defend the deployed force. With the review coming up the RAF will not want to lose any Typhoons or F35 where will the money come from for AD?

If its right that the UK has no active involvement on Aster Block 1-2 upgrades and CAAM-ER,surely that wont prevent the MOD from buying either should the need and funding arise ?

As far as I know ER is an Italian program and Aster NBT is Franco/Italian.

It’s not just the missiles it is the lack of launch platforms basically T45 is our only Aster launch platform & struggles to include larger more advanced versions of the missile. Sky Sabre launchers are limited. You then have to train crews etc as well as procure more platforms. Also if you’re not part of the programs then you don’t know the true capabilities – so you would have to get permission to see the data on the missiles without buying them to at least simulate you have them. Never mind trials etc. It’s not like popping to the MBDA supermarket and say give us 500 CAMM-ER & 300 Aster 30 NbT slot them in the launchers (that we don’t have enough of) & you’re good to go the next day. We need to be investing more seriously in this area overland so the Navy is not pulled away from its primary tasks but also including either adding the extra 16 cells to T45 and/or upgrading A50 sylver to A70 standard.

Se espera que las 3 grandes potencias en el futuro desarrollen el arma láser aunque se continúe mejorando detalles faltantes del arma misil en sus Ene usos y variantes.

To be brutally honest, lasers are still a long way off from being anything more than a close in weapon system. The other main problem that the UK would face is the maritime climate, where it is not always guaranteed to have a nice clear sunny day. Thereby with inclement weather the dispersion of the laser will mean its effective range is lessened.

In the future we may see either rail gun or coil guns replacing normal chemical guns, but again at the moment that is quite far off. The best option is still the surface or air launched anti-missile missile.

Guy Fawkes has a lot to answer for.

You should all read Sharkey Wards latest novel ‘Top Gun’. Some interesting and disturbing comments on the RAF’s ability on Britain’s air defence capability and the use of carrier born aircraft.

Many in the defence establishment don’t like Ward. I think it is because he is plain speaker with an insight founded in experience. You can’t knock his record. A record many of his detractors just don’t have.

X, please tell me you didn’t Downvote me here, I couldn’t live knowing that you had, after all the time I have Upvoted you on here.

No I don’t down vote.

I will add Sea Harrier over the Falklands is one of favourite books.

The RN back in 82 was huge. And surprisingly many more stayed on normal duties than went south. And some of the former were a bit jealous.

It’s true that Sharkey doesn’t hold back and says it’s as it is. I spent tome in the RN and MOD and it’s about time some one cut through the flannel and missinformation

Well if we can’t listen to a chap with a proven record who lead his squadron well in what was thought to be an impossible war by many then who can we listen to?

As you say there is a lot of flannel, misinformation, and simple lying in the MoD.

Sharkey Ward, Won the Falklands Air war, Single handedly……. So I read in one of his other Books.

Oh look, A down vote, were you there then ? I was.

I agree with the article. The cruise missile (CM) is still a very effective weapon and is incredibly difficult to stop. The question on how effective the Russian/Syrian air defence system was at not only detecting the Tomahawk and Storm Shadow attacks but intercepting them is debatable. Would Russia admit that they didn’t detect any or shoot any down, or claim they shot the majority down? The satellite after attack assessment images showed that a good number definitely reached their targets. It is however worrying, that the attack on the Saudi oil plant “seemed” to get not only past Patriot but to do so with only a last minute detection. This either showed the Saudis being asleep and not using the system correctly or that Patriot is not all its cracked up to be. It may also explain why Israel developed Iron Dome, Barack 8 and David’s Sling as a multi-tiered defence, as they have been operating Patriot for many years. It also shows that even “old tech” relatively slow non-stealthy CMs like Tomahawk or “locally” manufactured suicide drones, will have a very high probability of reaching their target.

For me, the best defence is a multi-tiered approach, but it will need investment. The main focus is network integration based around cooperative engagement capability (CEC). The air based surveillance platform is still the most effective means of detecting CMs. Land based radar and IR sensors will always have geography as their main Achilles. The curvature of the Earth limits the sea level detection range (explain that flat-earther). We are purchasing five E7 Wedgetails to replace the aging E3D Sentries. The Wedgetail has a better chance at detecting sea skimming CMs compared to Sentry. As recent test have proved by combining the sensors of a E3D Hawkeye or a F35 with a ship’s AEGIS missile system. Low flying targets can be engaged without the ship being in view of the target. This is where CEC comes into its own, as the Hawkeye controls the engagement, from detection to prosecution. We already know that a Sentry can use a Typhoon’s AMRAAM to target other aircraft. For us the Wedgetail should be able to do the same, if its equipped with CEC it allows more flexibility and capability, especially if there is a destroyer or frigate in the vicinity.

The main issue is that you really need two Wedgetails to cover the whole of the UK, 5 will not be enough, even when crews do extended hours. The Wedgetails need a back up. We could purchase more Wedgetails, which would be the sensible thing to do, but I don’t believe we have the budget. I would not look at Erieye as the cost would be near a Wedgetail, if based on a Bombardier regional jet. It would also need modifying to include air to air refuelling. No, the option I would look at is something that has more duration, the Hybrid Air Vehicle, Airlander 10. This airship can carry a payload of 10 tons for a range of around 4000km or a duration of 5 days. It has the space for a crew operating area and rest areas. But perhaps more crucially, it has the space to fit a 3 or 4 sided AESA radar in the envelope, to give it a field of regard (view) of 360 degrees. You could fit a Crowsnest system if you needed to do it on the cheap. The Crowsnest Searchwater radar, even though old tech, use an X band radar, specifically designed to look for sub periscopes. This means it will also have the resolution to detect sea skimming CMs against the sea’s surface clutter.

The next issue is the hard kill, what to use? The Aster missile is the obvious choice. By using either the Aster Block 1NT or the Block 2BMD will give the missile a significant stand-off range, as well as the ability to counter a ballistic missile. However, if the missile was networked via CEC and controlled by either a Wedgetail or F35 etc, it would allow a good probability of intercepting a CM. There is the small issue of getting the intercepting missile through civilian airspace without hitting anything, though I’m sure could be worked out!

Therefore, the air defence system is a development of what we currently have in place with the Sentry/Typhoon being the outer screen. But replaced by a switch to a networked system using Wedgetail and the Airlander 10 as the main sensors. The hard kill would be controlled by the airborne platform and use what ever is closest and available, but backed up with ground based Aster missiles. With the range of Aster, you would only need a couple of permanent locations in the UK. This would allow Sky Sabre and perhaps Wedgetail to be better focused on supporting deployments.

It has always baffled me, why we didn’t follow the French by using the maritime version of Storm Shadow, the MdCN version? It has a similar range to Tomahawk and there is a submarine launched version. I’m pretty certain that the missile could be integrated with the Mk41 VLS cell without much difficulty, as it’s not too dissimilar from the A70 Sylver launcher. MBDA have shown that it can be fired from a cannister launcher, so it could be fitted to a ship if it has the space and doesn’t have VLS.

More Wedgetails would be definitely most welcome. But Don’t forget we have a number of land based systems as well. My main concern is hard kill though – in that we pretty much don’t have any. Sky Sabre is short ranged & owned by the army who might actually need to defend themselves. I can’t see any reason as to why meteor couldn’t form the basis for a long ranged air defence missile add booster technology from CAMM scale both up 4/5 systems could potentially cover the UK? Typhoons etc can concentrate on attacking the source. Why not retain rapier as well? Its capable of cruise missile defence?

The retaliation threat is all well and good, but given a containerised launch from a cargo ship it could ve weeks or months before we even knew who fired at us. A cargo ship might be unaware of what it is carrying until point of operation?

I theory yes. But how it is garanteed that the container is not deep in the ship so unable to fire. Also if found – assuming it is a first surprise attack a la Pearl Harbor mission- it would be a disaster for said attacker.

Great article self-defense should be priority 1 IMO

I’d add if things escalated the other major threat would be cruise missiles launched from strategic bombers and the range of their cruise missiles & the typical load would mean typhoons would be busy dealing with the missiles launched & never actually remove the source. Consider SLCMS at the same time & a relevantly small Typhoon forces/RN etc. (Also probably needed elsewhere) & it doesn’t take much imagination….

Having a defence system that has a longer range such as aster 30 allows engagement & re-engagement of the missiles backed up by sky sabre & HVM also gives more security meaning Typhoons can be sent hunting.

The Asymmetric/proxy Ballistic Missile threat is one that we also have no effective defense again purchase of an aster 30nbt based system could also actually aid us in this. Pretty much every other major European countries have these capabilities we can’t even be bothered to invest in CAMM-ER & the number of sky sabre is lamentable especially as they’re likely to be deployed with the army as RAF has pretty much now given up its SAM’s. Not sure why rapier is being scrapped TBH yes not the most modern system but capable of defence against cruise missiles & cheaper than procuring more crewing could be done by civilian volunteers – something a lot of people maybe keen on joining

To combat ballistic missile, you would need to deploy anti missiles relavitily close to the launch sites of ballistic missiles, to intercept them in their boost stage. When the missile has reached about 60 miles altitude, most of the rocket will have jettison leaving just a warhead and guidance which will reenter the atmosphere and speed up to reach terminal speed which will be hypersonic at the target point.

That’s incorrect missiles can be intercepted at up to midpoint in it’s trajectory. You’re referring to boost phase defense. When patriots shot down Scuds debris fell in & around Tel Aviv which was their target so how were they intercepted in their boost phase? The debris would have been on the border with Iraq or inside Iraq if intercepted in the boost phase.

In fact terminal phase is possible https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile_defense

General Comment – The USSR imploded more than 30 years ago, that is a generation and a bit. As a result of the consequent demise of a serious immediate threat to the West there is an entire generation of leaders out there, civilian and military, who experience of military action is going somewhere obscure and facing a threat no more serious than small arms and home made IED’s. Until something occurs that forces said leaders into the 2020’s, talk will be much more prevalent than action.

And that’s no bad thing. Jaw, jaw still much preferable to war, war.

“ As a result of the consequent demise of a serious immediate threat to the West”

Field Marshall Bramall whos service began in WW2 including Normandy landings and commanded a division in Germany during the Cold war said he considered a Soviet attack highly unlikely during the 1970s. However his American counterpart thought it could come ‘next week’ There is even less chance of a Russian attack now than the 1970s. The Russians are even less prepared for open warfare than everyone else in Europe.

I wouldn’t say less prepared. Just not coming.

The Russian are investing in a lot of equipment. Probably as much as anybody in Europe for example the Poles. But they are not going to invade. Why would they?

Some here are so thirsty for war it is sickening and not really good for this site’s image.

I hope we have contingency plans in place to defend our critical infrastructure (eg. Faslane) or a potential adversary may well manage to do to us what we wanted to do to Rio Grande airbase ie. nobble the Etendard threat at source.

In terms of deterrence, could a cheap way to hold others more or less constantly at short-notice risk be to find a way to bolt storm shadows to our P8s? If we could also chuck a few quid at air tanker to get some booms, we’d then have a rapid global counter-strike capability on the cheap. I’m assuming that SS has a range of more than 500k in reality.

Compared to the previous Nimrod, the bomb bay of a Poseidon is tiny (about 3 and bit metres long). It can fit 5 Mk54 (2.75m long) torpedoes, but there’s not much spare space length wise. For the P8 to carry the just over 5m long Storm Shadow, they would have to be used from the 4 wing hardpoints. The US are due to integrate the AGM-158C LRASM with the P8, this is slightly shorter at 4.3m long and is probably too long for the bomb bay.

The LRASM is based on the joint air to surface standoff missile, but has a more effective sensor suite. It is designed as a stealthy anti-ship missile, but can still attack land targets. Storm Shadow is primarily a land attack cruise missile and has a sophisticated imaging infrared sensor for target recognition that it uses to compare a target’s image against. The blurb states it can be used against a static ship target, but there’s nothing stopping it from attacking a moving one.

Think outside the box. For CM defense you would like something that is both combat effective as well as cost effective. Traditional missile based interception is not ideal solution. I am thinking HEL, medium caliber “smart” ammo like MADFires and BAE developed HVP. As a matter of fact just recently US demonstrated shooting down a CM target using 155mm howitzer firing HVP projectile.

The bickering between the RAF and RN on this forum explains a lot of the reason why the armed forces in this country are outdated and lacking man power. The different forces are incapable of aligning and influencing key government stakeholders as a single, unified and powerful entity. Thus the government can easily decline the bits and piece proposals and spend the money on other departments.

The obvious answer is that the UK needs to be able survive a limited but relatively undefended and surprise CM first strike to vital military infrastructure. By that I’m talking Faslane, the P8 base and naval harbours where the small number of RN warfighting ships are base. Feel free to add to that list. An initial strike could be airborn, could come from land based missiles at Kalingrad, from Russian subs or even from a customised civilian container vessel. It is almost impossible to prevent the launch of an attack like this militarily. So our key infrastructure and assets either need strong protection or we need strength in depth. After that we then need to be able to make the pain level for any adversary to get within launching range of our shores to be completely unacceptable. That means the ability to strike at land based missiles, the ability to dominate air-space and the ability to hunt down and destroy any hostile subs.

“ where the small number of RN warfighting ships are base.”

The large number Jim. The Royal Navy by ships and tonnage being one of the largest navies in the world.

We should have more underground or hardened bunkers for our tanks, aeroplanes, submarines, etc.

I think Russia has been very smart in how it spends its money and the UK should apply some of this as lessons learned.

• build upon proven skillsets – keep what we know works
• for Russia this is long range fires, Wide Are Air Denial, nuclear and fighter jets
• expansion of their historically strong intelligence and cyber capabilities
• Invest in low cost solutions where possible and be very focused on high spend items
• where there is a capability gap – fill this with relatively inexpensive hybrid warfare solutions and disruptors.
• Pursue innovations to support non physical warfare – such as Cyber and other non traditional methods.
• Where you cannot compete – go asymmetric or create a “killer” product, such as hypersonic carrier killers
• Where you have limited assets, make those assets fully functional (small ships that are fully loaded) and capable to fight.

In short they have invested in kit very wisely either to offset clear areas of strength of NATO or to improve areas of national capability, whilst using low tech solutions to offset key capability gaps.

The UK could apply this as follows

• build upon 100 years of sub surface fleet
• Precision fires and Strike
• Invest in a UK missile manufacturing and storage solution for NATO.
• UK wide area air defence with long range missiles and radar shield
• Enhance our Cyber capabilities
• Enhance our elite forces capabilities and depth

I think we should firstly ensure the UK has the ability to provide a comprehensive air defence shield as a first step, manage the northern flank for NATO (leaving Central Europe to other allies) and maintain carrier strike, cyber warfare centre of excellence and the Nuclear Deterrent should be our priorities.

Unless the perspective is confusing; the vessel in the top photo looks like a corvette. If they are able to fire CMs, possibly hypersonic, from such a vessel then the MOD needs to review the lightly armed,” fitted for but not with” RN.

See German navy has signed up for RBS15.

The real and present threat to the nation is here already.

We need to design and build unmanned and autonomous capable drones in the UK made up of several classes (E.g. Low, Mid & High-End / range) as our future drone replacements.

We should also build a new class of 100m long unmanned and autonomous capable vessels (similar to the BMT designed Sea Fighter in use by the US Navy) that would allow for vessels to reach locations quickly, expend missiles and then get out quickly. Or build an unmanned and autonomous version of the River Class and upgrade the engines to increase the speed.

Why not equip Sky Sabre with CAMM-ER instead of CAMM?Additionally it could do with Aster 30, Aster 30 Block 1 and Aster 30 Block 1NT as well to provide protection at different ranges as with the S-400 system. And then provide additional defence with a mobile version of the Skyshield Air Defence System. And if MANTIS can be made mobile all the better.

Amazing to think the UK has allowed such a glaring gap in its defensive shield to grow over time without having put in place the optimal asset acquisition policy to cover the gap for something so fundamental as IAD of the motherland.

While I agree with most articles written by these guys, this is just paranoid scaremongering. Any attack on British home soil by a foreign declaration of war, something that has not happened for the past 70 years because now we all have nuclear weapons, (based on how close we came during the Cuban Missile Crisis etc and no attacks were even then made…) it would be HIGHLY lively to snowball into a nuclear war which even the Russians and Chinese want to avoid.

There will likely be actual shots fired in proxy wars, as well as on the borders of Russia and China where they might seek to expand their territories (eg the Crimea). But we are on the other side of the world from China (so what would they gain from attacking us risk provoking a huge international response?) and on the other side of a bunch of other allied NATO nations from Russia, so we’re one of the last they would go after.

Terrorism is a possibility, but few of those have submarines, nuclear-powered battlecruisers or Tu-160 bombers… (and it would be quite obvious who sponsored them if they were to get their hands on any). Especially with the new carriers, the threat of reprisals against any nations sponsoring terrorism has vastly increased.

Fair enough to protect a few key sights as a precaution… But it would be a waste of our very tight national defence budget to spend it all on trying to protect Britain from a threat that is FAR less likely than countering other more likely threats. Like attacks on our overseas territories, or Russia & China trying to exert soft power.

Time for a rethink after Putin’s attack on Ukraine.

Last I checked, Russia invaded Ukraine, not the UK.

If the UK was on the border of Russia, then it would be a very different situation and we would need extensive anti-air/missile batteries all around the country.

It would appear that the motto of the Royal Navy “fitted for but not with” does not translate into Russian, or Chinese for that matter. Despite being constantly faced by inferior British warships, and knowing that, in moderate numbers only, they can wipe the Royal Navy off the face of the ocean, the Russians still persist in building ships designed for purpose, for war, and command of the seas on which they sail. Maybe being British allows you to display to the world that £1 billion Air Defence destroyers have a very well equipped weights and physical training area instead of sea to air missile silo’s, maybe giving American Marines “the best time of my life” on a cruise around some of the worlds hot spots is important for when our backs are up against a wall, but in my book sorting out the b—–d who wants to put a great big hole through the side of your floating home is all that matters.

” the Russians still persist in building ships designed for purpose, for war, and command of the seas on which they sail.”

With all due respect this statement didn’t age well. You would hope a T45 would have easily dealt with an attack like the one on the Moskva.

I was looking to gain some understanding of the UK’s defence capabilities against missile attacks on the mainland, so I just wanted to say thanks for making a summary available which is nuanced and detailed enough to cover the complexities without being unapproachable for the layperson. It would be good if the author’s name was included so a reader could find more of their content!

UK Complacency and Hubris reigning is the one message I get from reading this. This article should be compulsory reading for every MP and military officer.

How about using airship drones for this role? They have long endurance and can stay airborne for days, weeks or possibly even months.

Their altitude would give them excellent radar coverage.

If fitted with lasers and operating in the stratosphere (where AIUI there’s little moisture or wind so the lasers would work optimally) then they should theoretically be very effective at shooting down all sorts of missiles. Not just cruise missiles, but also ballistic missiles and manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles. Possibly even nuclear ICBMs. They could also defend themselves from AAMs and SAMs.

1+ megawatt chemical lasers already exist and as electric lasers become more powerful they could be powered using Small Modular Reactors (SMRs). I’ve read the smalllest current SMRs can fit in a shipping container. The airship company Flying Whales makes a cargo airship that can carry up to 60 tonnes. Since the UK and Ireland are surrounded by water, using SMRs would be far less problematic compared to land-locked countries for example. This would also mean towns and cities wouldn’t be full of air defence systems, although given the choice of that or what the Ukrainians are currently going through the decision isn’t a hard one.

Other options: – Land-based SAM systems of varying ranges and capabilities, e.g. Sky Sabre, SAMP/T, David’s Sling, THAAD, Arrow, Aegis Ashore, GBI – Ship-based SAM systems: Aster 30 Block 1NT, Aster 30 Block 2 BMD, SM-3, SM-6 – Land-based SHORAD/C-RAM systems: MANTIS NBS, Oerlikon Skyshield and Oerlikon Skyguard – Land-based chemical lasers and microwave weapons – In the future the TWISTER air defence system which is currently being developed

Russia threatens 'military response' after UK gives long-range missiles to Ukraine

Ukraine has long been calling for long-range missiles, but the US and other countries have been unwilling to supply them in case strikes inside Russia lead to escalation.

Political reporter

Friday 12 May 2023 06:17, UK

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The UK has been threatened with a "military response" by Russia after pledging to send long-range missiles to Ukraine.

The UK's defence secretary Ben Wallace said Storm Shadow missiles will be provided to Ukraine 's military - and Sky News understands that some of the missiles are already with Ukrainian troops.

In response to reports the deal had been done, Moscow said the move would require an "adequate response from our military".

Latest news: Politics latest: Tories clarify stance on election pact with other parties War latest: R ussia threatens UK with 'adequate response' after missile announcement

Storm Shadow is a long-range, air-launched cruise missile developed by British Aerospace and a French company, which carries a 450kg conventional warhead to a range of up to 200 miles (300km).

Speaking in the House of Commons, Mr Wallace said: "The donation of these weapons systems gives Ukraine the best chance to defend themselves against Russia's continued brutality, especially the deliberate targeting of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure, which is against international law.

More on Ben Wallace

Tax cuts, a new PM and a Nigel Farage comeback - what 2024 could have in store for UK politics

Ex-defence secretary Ben Wallace warns Israel against 'killing rage' in Gaza

UK's new defence secretary and what it means for Ukraine

Related Topics:

• Ben Wallace

"Ukraine has a right to be able to defend itself against this."

He added that the missiles would be for use "within Ukrainian sovereign territory".

Missiles being launched into Russia would raise the likelihood of a greater Russian reaction.

Mr Wallace said he would not give in-depth details of the capabilities of Storm Shadow - but said: "These weapons will give Ukraine new capability, members should recognise that these systems are not even in the same league as the Russian AS-24 killjoy hypersonic missile," or "even the Kalibr cruise missile with a range of over 2,000 kilometres, roughly seven times that of a Storm Shadow missile".

What are storm shadow cruise missiles?

News reporter

The deployment of the Storm Shadow cruise missiles mark a significant step-up in the capabilities of arms the UK has sent to Ukraine.

The missile has a strike capability of nearly 200 miles (300km) - meaning it would potentially allow Ukraine to hit further into Russian territory.

The missile weighs 1.3 tonnes and is just over 5m long.

It is launched from the air, and in theory can be used from Ukraine's Soviet-made jets.

UK-owned Storm Shadow missiles are made in Stevenage by MBDA. Each cruise missile costs an estimated £2m.

The Storm Shadow was originally developed as a project between the UK and France in the early 1990s.

It was used in Iraq in 2003, while France, Italy and the UK used it in Libya in 2011.

The missiles have also been used to bomb Islamic State targets in Syria and Iraq.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has pleaded with Western nations for these types of missiles for months - but the requests have been denied, especially by the US.

In his speech, the defence secretary laid out some of the ways Russia had been attacking Ukraine - including allegations it had used white phosphorous.

He said that using such weapons - "which burn at 800C" - is in contravention of "protocol three of the Convention of Certain Conventional Weapons".

Related Topics

• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Credit card rates
• Balance transfer credit cards
• Business credit cards
• Cash back credit cards
• Rewards credit cards
• Travel credit cards
• Checking accounts
• Online checking accounts
• High-yield savings accounts
• Money market accounts
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Car insurance
• Home buying
• Options pit
• Investment ideas
• Research reports
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing
• Newsletters

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard

Trump's hush money trial resumes as ex-National Enquirer boss testifies

Uk sends ukraine long-range missiles in biggest aid package.

(Bloomberg) -- The UK will send more Storm Shadow long-range missiles to Ukraine as part of its single biggest military aid package to the country since Russia’s invasion, Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said.

Most Read from Bloomberg

Ray Dalio’s Famous Trade Is Sputtering, Investors Bailing

Apple’s China iPhone Sales Dive 19% in Worst Quarter Since 2020

Tesla Stock in ‘No Man’s Land’ After 43% Rout Ahead of Earnings

Zimbabwe’s ZiG Wipes Out 330% Stocks Rally

Trump Has Only $6.8 Million for Legal Fees With Trial Underway

As well as the Storm Shadows, which are precision-guided cruise missiles with a firing range in excess of 250 kilometers (155 miles), Britain is also sending more than 1,600 strike and air defense missiles, Sunak’s office said. The package amounts to £500 million ($620 million) of new spending, taking total UK military aid to Ukraine this financial year to £3 billion.

“Defending Ukraine against Russia’s brutal ambitions is vital for our security and for all of Europe,” Sunak said in a statement ahead of a 2-day trip to Poland and Germany beginning Tuesday. If Russian President Vladimir Putin “is allowed to succeed in this war of aggression, he will not stop at the Polish border,” the premier added.

On Tuesday, Sunak told reporters traveling with him that he’s appointing General Gwyn Jenkins, who currently serves as the vice chief of the defense staff, as his new national security adviser, the first time someone from a military background has held the role. Jenkins replaces Tim Barrow, who a person familiar with the matter said will be Britain’s next ambassador to the US.

“In an incredibly uncertain and increasingly dangerous world, it’s important the person doing this job has the requisite set of skills to provide advice to me and to help navigate that landscape,” Sunak told reporters.

Sunak will hold meetings with Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk and NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in Warsaw, before traveling to Berlin to meet German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Wednesday. On Tuesday morning he held a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to reiterate Britain’s support and his efforts to galvanize wider international assistance, according to a readout provided by 10 Downing Street.

Zelenskiy has been calling for more air defense systems as Russian forces exploit Ukraine’s ammunition shortage by stepping up missile attacks on power stations, electricity grids and residential areas. German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock said last week that Ukraine urgently needs more air defense.

As part of the new funding, Britain will also procure drones to be sent to Ukraine, scaling up domestic defense supply chains.

The package also includes some 60 boats, comprising offshore raiding craft, dive boats and maritime guns, as well as more than 400 vehicles, including “Husky” vehicles and over 160 other armored vehicles. Some 4 million rounds of small arms ammunition will also be included.

--With assistance from Kitty Donaldson.

(Updates with new national security adviser in fourth paragraph.)

Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek

How a Massive Hack of Psychotherapy Records Revealed a Nation’s Secrets

A Hedge Fund Billionaire’s Cash Helped Fund a ‘Predatory’ Lender

China’s Bubble Tea Boom Creates a Half-Dozen Billionaires

Big Junk Food’s Campaign to Get You Eating Doritos and Oreos for Dinner

What Really Happens When You Trade In an iPhone at the Apple Store

©2024 Bloomberg L.P.

Recommended Stories

Perplexity is raising $250m+ at a $2.5-$3b valuation for its ai search platform, sources say.

Perplexity, the AI search engine startup, is a hot property at the moment. TechCrunch has learned that the company is currently raising at least $250 million more at a valuation of between $2.5 billion and $3 billion. The news comes on the heels of two other big fundraises that have seen company's valuation leapfrog in the last four months: in January the company raised nearly $74 million at a valuation of $540 million (up from $121 million in April 2023).

US has 'structural shortage' of millions of homes, PulteGroup CEO says

PulteGroup says the housing shortage presents an opportunity as the company reports first quarter earnings that beat Wall Street estimates.

Spotify turns a profit as earnings and revenue beat estimates

Spotify reported first quarter earnings before the bell on Tuesday. Here's what to know.

What does 'show' mean in Major League Baseball? 'Top of the line ... there's no level above it'

To the average person, "show" is a verb and a noun. To MLB players, it's also an adjective.

Who knew you could get Amazon's No. 1 bestselling, cooling queen mattress topper for just $60?

'I've had considerably less hip pain,' wrote one of 86,000+ fans. 'This does not seem to hold in my body heat.'

These are the cars being discontinued for 2024 and beyond

As automakers shift to EVs, trim the fat on their lineups and cull slow-selling models, these are the vehicles we expect to die off soon.

New Nissan Murano, Armada, and new Rogue trim will continue brand's rebound

Nissan dealer meetings preview a new Murano, a new Armada, and Rogue Rock Creek Edition trim due this year that will continue Nissan's rebound.

'Leaves absolutely no residue': This liquid-free screen cleaner is down to $13 at Amazon — that's 50% off

The reusable roller easily removes dust and fingerprints from smartphones, tablets and more, fans say.

The Scorecard: Is there any stopping Elly De La Cruz in fantasy this season?

Elly De La Cruz has been scorching to start the fantasy baseball season — but is there an end in sight? Dalton Del Don gives his take on that and more.

Fisker plans more layoffs as cash dwindles and bankruptcy looms

Fisker says it's planning more layoffs less than two months after cutting 15% of its workforce, as the EV startup scrambles to raise cash to stay alive. Fisker expects to seek bankruptcy protection within the next 30 days if it can't come up with that money, according to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regulatory filing. Fisker said in the filing that it's currently trying to raise money to pay off a loan that it defaulted on in order to avoid bankruptcy.

NFL Draft Four Verts: The most fun trade-up scenarios involve the Vikings and Jaguars

Imagine a scenario where the Vikings trade up to draft Drake Maye, putting him in the same division with Caleb Williams and Jordan Love. Isn't that fun?

The Ferrari of electric toothbrushes is down to just $30 from Amazon — save 25% while you can

The popular AquaSonic comes with eight brush heads and over 84,000 five-star reviews.

This Amazon deal on a top-selling Roomba robot vacuum will save you nearly $100 — it's down to $180

15,000+ shoppers say this smart appliance is a cleaning 'dust'-have.

The best noise-canceling headphones for 2024

Noise cancellation is a primary feature on most flagship, over-ear headphones. If you're looking to get a pair of cans that can truly block out the world, these are the best noise-canceling headphones you can get today.

Stock market today: US stocks climb as earnings season kicks into high gear

The wait for Tesla results is on as investors look to Big Tech earnings to buoy stocks.

2024 NFL Draft: Dallas Turner is the favorite to be the first defender picked, but how early will a defensive player get chosen?

Could the top 10 picks all be offensive players on Thursday night?

Y Combinator alum Matterport is being bought by real estate juggernaut Costar at a 212% premium

Digital twin platform Matterport has agreed to be acquired by one of its customers, Costar, in a cash-and-stock deal of $5.50 per share that gives it an enterprise valuation of about $1.6 billion. Matterport's tech helps companies create digital replicas of physical spaces. Costar's offer represents a premium of a whopping 212% over Matterport’s last closing share price before the deal was announced on April 22.

Bump raises $3 million seed to help creators manage finances

James Jones’ father was an engineer. “I also often had creators complain about the lack of ownership over their creative assets and how painful it was to get loans, mortgages, or generally create generational wealth opportunities for themselves and their families,” Jones told TechCrunch. Jones said the pandemic brought forth a new set of challenges for creators: So many of them were at home trying to figure out how they would earn money and what to do next.

Texture makes a bid to become the world’s go-to platform of the energy transition

Platform is a word that gets tossed around a lot in technology circles, so much so that it’s often misused. Serial startup veteran Sanjiv Sanghavi, who has logged experience as the co-founder of ClassPass and chief product officer at Arcadia, thinks it’s high time the energy transition birthed its equivalent. In fact, he spent years as a venture partner at Day One Ventures looking in vain to invest in such a company.

With Easel, ex-Snap researchers are building the next-generation Bitmoji thanks to AI

Easel is a new startup that sits at the intersection of the generative AI and social trends, founded by two former employees at Snap. There’s a reason why I mentioned that the co-founders previously worked at Snap before founding Easel. While Snap may never reach the scale of Instagram or TikTok, it has arguably been the most innovative social company since social apps started taking over smartphone home screens.

• North America
• South America
• The OSINT Bunker
• Submission Guidelines
• Correction Policy
• Social Media and Comment Moderation Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy

Britain purchasing Ballistic Missile Defence system

The u.s. state department has approved a £533 million sale to the united kingdom of a ballistic missile defense radar and command and battle management and communications equipment..

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale yesterday.

“The Government of the United Kingdom (UK) has requested to buy one (1) Ballistic Missile Defense Radar (BMDR); and two (2) Command and Control Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC) user nodes (with network capability required to connect to the C2BMC System to support radar operations).  

Also included are design and construction of a combined radar-equipment shelter;  encryption devices, secure communication equipment, and other required COMSEC equipment to support radar operations; spare and repair parts, support and testing equipment, publications and technical documentation, personnel training and training equipment, U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical and logistics support services, and other related elements of logistical and program support.  The total estimated program cost is $700 million.”

The proposed sale will improve the UK’s ability to meet current and future ballistic missile threats.

When will this enter service?

As part of cost-saving measures outlined in the recent ‘Defence Equipment Plan 2021-2031’, plans for a new ground-based ballistic missile defence radar have been delayed to 2029. The Ministry of Defence recently published its tenth annual summary of the defence equipment plan.

The document contains a great deal of technical information about the projects and the management/funding side of them and you can read that for yourself here but the detail on this project is scarce, the document simply makes mention of the decision to “Defer Lewis BMD radar” as part of a cost saving exercise designed to save between £100m to £199m. Further detail was revealed in the National Audit Office report on the Defence Equipment Plan, which mentions the following:

“Delayed construction of a radar system to detect ballistic missiles (by three years) to 2029.”

This, the NAO say, is part of measures which the Ministry of Defence expects will save £3.8 billion over 10 years, but which will affect military capability.

Back in 2017, the MoD issued a Request For Information regarding radar technology and capability for a new ground-based ballistic missile defence radar system. The information came to light thanks to a question asked in Parliament by Mr Kevan Jones, MP for North Durham:

“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to paragraph 4.16 of the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, what progress has been made on his Department’s plan to invest in a ground-based BMD radar.”

The question was answered by Harriett Baldwin, the then Under Secretary of State for Defence Procurement:

“Since the Strategic Defence and Security Review announcement, the UK missile defence community has been undertaking detailed scoping of the options for the future ground-based ballistic missile defence (BMD) radar. A Request For Information was issued to Industry in June this year to gather information about radar technology and capability. We expect the radar to be in service by the mid-2020s.”

The UK’s current and only ballistic missile defence radar is at RAF Fylingdales (pictured at the top of this article), speculation suggests that either a site in the UK or Cyprus will house the system. While the radar station at RAF Fylingdales remains a British asset operated and commanded by the Royal Air Force, it also forms one of three stations in the United States BMEWS network.

The other two stations in the network are Thule Air Base, Greenland and Clear Air Force Station, Alaska. The data obtained by Fylingdales is shared fully and freely with the United States, where it feeds into the US-Canadian North American Aerospace Defence Command at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

Eagle warning system for F-15 completes operational testing

Northrop ballistic missile target successfully launched

F-16 jets to be turned into autonomous drones

British aircraft continue to supply weapons to Ukraine

Red Arrows begin ‘Blue’ repaint thanks to funding

Britain trialling Harrier jets on carriers

Silly question but why does this article refer to it as a “ballistic missile defence system” when it is just a detection system? It won’t improve our defence, it just gives more notice of impending doom so the elite can hide in their bunkers.

I would have preferred the money be spent on glaring capability gaps and uplifts in numbers.

My thoughts as well on detection but I is one part of a system. Then hopefully we do the next part with aster NG or sm3 missiles. Aegis onshore anyone at least the rocket part?

I wonder how many sm3 batteries we’d need to cover the UK, too many for us to afford I’d wager. Can you imagine the political fallout (pun intended) if it was just London. Also sm3 doesn’t deal with ICBMs does it?

SM-3 has demonstrated capability against ICBMs

Protect just London ? Business as usual

They already discussed about putting a type 45 in the mouth of the Thames to protect London. Stuff the rest of the country.

That sounds about right.

This would be a bad use of a mobile platform using it as a shore battery. We should buy ASTER 30 1NT/2 and put them in strategic areas. The fact that we have no organic land defence SAM is a disgrace. France has land based SAMS as does Italy and other NATO countries. Turkey even has a Russian SAM system… we have no equivalant.

But, this and previous governments always use short-term solutions for long-term problems.

Question is protect it from how many? 1 missile you would want at least a couple to be sure of a hit. 10 at once is going to be very challenging if not impossible to hit them all. Anymore than 10-20 and it becomes extremely difficult. If 1 missile then spit out 5 warheads and 30 decoys, there’s 35 targets. If 10 missiles do it 350 targets etc etc. I’m not sure if this is worth the money. There is no defence and we already have flyingdales and other detection systems. Can help but think this money could go else …  Read more »

It does seem rather a waste of time spending money on it when you say it like that. We’d need thousands of missiles to make it worthwhile, then watch as they were rendered useless by adaptations made to the ICBMs.

Hi Rob ,there is a programme on Yestrday Channel sky 155 called Abandoned Engineering on one episode they showed an ICBM radar detector that was built in the states just like this one but from the 1970ts cost 1 billion dollars when completed it was switched on then 2 days later switched off and never switched on again ,So there is a billon Dollar Croncrete Pyramid sitting Abandoned now that’s wasting money

Lined a lot of pockets with dollars though. They’re masters of that. Corruption!

Mick thanks for your post, that place is in North Dakota where the hardware store must sell Hammers at $ 1000 each and a box of Nails for $ 2000 so someone is pocketing $2950 We call people who would pay that much” Shadow Chancellor “

The analyses I’ve seen of the US’s ballistic missile defense systems concluded that it would probably be effective against 20-30 missiles at once, enough to secure the west coast against North Korea but certainly not a more credible nuclear power. And that’s with Aegis-equipped ships in the Pacific, Cold-War interception missiles from silos and SAMs, not to mention their much more extensive radars. We might be able to shoot the odd missile down with Aster 30, but I don’t think this radar is going to accomplish much except give people a few more minutes to get to their basements and …  Read more »

Thanks too the False ending of the Cold War, we lost the ROC ,our Warning Sirens, the 2min Beep Alarm in fire Stations and most of our Bunkers sold off for peanuts converted into Canabis farms but at least we still have Pamistones Follies too fall back on Michael

Agree about any BMDsystem like US THAALD being ineffective against a massive inbound missile salvo. But a simple BMD with interceptors might be able to defend against a rogue state firing eg Iran or North Korea who might only have a small number of ICBM . Interceptors….we would need probably 5 or 6 batteries strategically located around the UK. Ideally on mobile launchers so they can de dispersed.

TOO late, by time the warheads reach our airspace! Intercepted needs to take place well before reaching UK airspace.

Remember Russians don’t have many, 1500 total warheads deployed but very few active at any one time.

Obviously it has only limited use against for example Russia but I think it’s more for defence against rouge states that wouldn’t have many missiles with multiple warheads

Much easier to destroy ICBM’s in boost stage or in early mid-course stage, before separation of nuclear warheads and decoys from the warhead-bus. Or even easier to destroy the warhead-bus at mid-course stage by a space based laser before separation of the warheads.

Fortunately we know the likely direction of a launch, and SM-3 has a publicised range of 2500km. For reference, that’s the distance from London to Moscow (although that’s obviously not the effective range of the weapon).

An SM-3 battery anywhere in the UK could do the job, but because most of Russia’s SSBNs are north of us, a battery in Scotland could likely shield the whole UK pretty well.

An SM-3 battery with how many missiles? It seems we’d need an awful lot to defeat multiple ICBMs, each with their decoys and warheads.

This depends on when the interception takes place. If during the missile’s transit phase, where the Intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) has yet to deploy it multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) and decoys. A single SM-3 can take out the whole missile assembly. If they MIRVs and decoys have been deployed it makes it much harder to intercept and a space based laser weapons system would be more beneficial.

Excuse my ignorance, but is that what the new radar is designed for do you think, to pickup the ICBM early to allow it to be intercepted during transit?

I don’t think Fylingdales range reaches that far east of the Urals. A site in Cyprus, for example, could. I believe mobile IRBM, ICBM deploy in that area?

Launch is 1st detected by IR satellites I believe.

IR is a spectrum.

The spectrum can be observed and recorded with an IR spectrometer.P

Each material has a distinctive IR spectrum.

The spectrum from rocket fuel is not the same as magnesium.

The spectrum from a large heat shield in re-entry would be different from a lower mass decoy that had less mass and therefore slowed differently and had a lower thermal output.

This is all in any MSc Analytical Chemistry course.

I’ll take your word for that! Over my head. 😆

Better dust my books off then…..oh sorry they were magazines of a certain entertainment based subject….

Troodos Mountain Cyprus.

Daniele, good point yet I would have thought that an escalation up too the point of a Nuclear launch those IR Sat’s would probable have been taken out thus given the element of suprise back too the aggressor

Other than one or two rogue missiles forget intercepting them.

With decoys etc there would be hundreds of targets. With a close to zero percent chance of not killing the target being the only acceptable outcome it would involve 3 or 4 missiles per target. Hundreds if not thousands of abm weapons being needed.

That’s not even close to being affordable, even for the US.

The Russians don’t have that kind of armament any more and don’t have the budget to rebuild it.

Incoming from around the Equator in the Atlantic?

You want to be intercepting them much closer to the launch site not above the uk in terminal phase deploying warheads and decoys.

we would need 10,000 SM3 or other intercept missiles to cover the worst case scenario of Russia launching all its nuclear missiles solely at the UK.

this is based on the practice of 2 SM3 per intercept + spares.

no idea how many launchers etc, but its a hell of a lot of missiles

Apparently the SM-3 Block IIA missiles cost around $36m each!

That assumes that all of the Russian missiles work? Realistically, even on Russian statistics, half the missiles they list are not operational. What % do you think actually function? 10% at best I would guess? Allowing for the Kleptocracy/corruption factor? Then you have the usual maintenance and operation cycles….. Then a lot of them are Cold War crud with minimal modifications……honestly anything like the decoy units found in Ukraine will be totally useless – stuff straight out of 1990’s electronics projects. Whilst one nuc slipping through would be a disaster I don’t think status it’s favour then Russian systems over …  Read more »

Those decoys relate to the Iskander and if they get within range we are in deep trouble. As regard to accuracy, they seem to be doing pretty well in Ukraine, as do the Russian’s various cruise missiles.

Well; and Russian;and Ukraine,

don’t belong in the same sentence.

Dream on if you think that sort of junk is going to work against modern electronics.

WELL, the thing this proves is that RUSSIAN weapons in UKRAINE are INACCURATE.

There FIFY John.

If they’re that accurate then it just proves that the Russians are deliberately targeting maternity hospitals, schools, residential blocks and theatres full of women and children.

Try looking beyond the MSM. Any pictures of injured and bodies coming out of the theatre yet? You are aware that the locals were posting on Facebook 3 days in advance what was going to happen?

Oh and another Facebook post of a Ukrainian SAM fired in Kiev decided to hit a building in Kiev appeared today, its good that they leave trails.

The Russians destroy a lot but not everything they are accused of.

Look beyond MSM to what? Sergei Lavrov ? Peskov ? Sputnik news? How many burned and shattered bodies would you like to see? What on earth would you know about what locals in Mariupol were posting on Facebook? Quit your gaslighting, Ukraine would not have to fire any SAM if Russia hadn’t invaded, and let’s be clear, it’s Russian ordinance that’s falling on Ukrainian hospitals , schools, housing and shops. Directed by Russian military commanders as they are militarily incompetent.

But yeah, MSM . FFS.

“Try looking beyond the MSM” – funny that’s what the anti-vaxxers, plandemic, WEF, flat-earther, conspiracy theorists all say 😂

But I’m sure you’ll have lots more time to make up stories like this now that you can’t contribute to RT anymore 😏

Msm same lazy acronym as Andrew…..oh dear oh dear yet again caught out! Hilarious.

Well the main thing I took out of that was Kiev not Kyiv…just saying is all.

You know you are letting your guard down russkie boy, as your getting angry and showing your agenda more and more, come on Andrew, sorry JohninMK, sort it out son.

I for one are more than tired of your bull. Considering the current situation your bias is not only tiresome…its now insultery. Direct blatant targetting of civillians is a war crime. Keep peddling your line and I say your an accessory to it. Strike you off this site someone please?

Agreed mate!

Cheers trying very hard to bite my lip mate…cant say what I really wish I could.

You have not got access to normal media than Ivan lots of crispy dead Russian troops and tanks daily , it really is not going well for you guys , no major progress in 2 weeks , you sound a bit desperate there Ivan as you should do lol.

That’s an outrageous thing to say JohninMK. The Russians are doing what the Russians have always done. Whether it was Afghanistan, Chechnya, or Ukraine, the Russians murder innocent women and children, while destroying any city that stands in their way. It’s in their form book and strategy.

War crimes have been committed, Putin and his cronies need to stand trial in the Hauge when all this is over.

George, can we please just ban John in Moscow, as he’s clearly a Putin mouthpiece, time to shut him down……

Please google Lord Haw Haw, we strung him up for giving succour to the enemy by his propoganda. Just saying.

Spot on John ,Civvies seem too be the only targets that can’t hit back how brave of Spewtin the war criminal

You’d need a combination of SM-3s for exo-atmospheric interception and SM-6 or THAAD for atmospheric interceptions for full coverage. Even Patriot and SM-2s can be used in the lower atmosphere. But you are correct, for a full onslaught, you would need a shed load of missiles to counter the attack.

Perhaps an optimal solution for us is ground based Thaad and then 5 BMD destroyers with a 144/196 load out that we can use as the uk escort (1 north – 1 south) in a 1 off/on config with 1 in maintenance.

This would probably give us the best value overall solution from a value proposition

Does MDBA have a similar product to SM3?

It did or does with the Aster BMD. But information about its progress has gone very quiet over the last 5 years, so it may have been shelved. MBDA have been paid to investigate a ballistic missile defence system that can be in service by 2030. Used to replace Aster. The program is called TWISTER and uses a next generation interceptor that can counter manoeuvring re-entry vehicles, hypersonic glide vehicles, anti-ship missiles and next generation aircraft. The description is for an endo-atmospheric missile in the same league and capabilities as the SM6. Trawling through MBDAs Twister blurb, there is next …  Read more »

There is zero chance of any current system stopping a full onslaught by any of the major nuclear powers. In a couple of decades?……maybe. The Russians certainly think that it’s only a matter of time before the US makes a breakthrough in ABM technology and that’s why they keep experimenting with more exotic delivery systems. Think nuclear torpedo. One thing that bears watching closely is the new LRDR (Long Range Discrimination Radar) built by Lockheed. This thing is an absolute monster of a radar, supposedly for the first time ever in any radar, able to accurately and reliably tell the …  Read more »

I wonder is the AN/SPY-7 (LRDR) the same radar that the ABM statement is talking about? This operates in the S-band (2 to 4GHz) with a wavelength of 15cm down to 7.5cm. This is the same as the T45’s Sampson radar. But is significantly more powerful, being ground based and not needing to worry about top weight. S-band is a very good compromise between target resolution and effective radiated power. Especially for ICBM detection distances. If money was no object, you’d use X-band. As this has even better target resolution, but suffers more from atmospheric attenuation. So you have to …  Read more »

It’s roughly the same cost as the Alaskan LRDR radar, so it’s certainly possible.

Depends on what you want to do. Japan was going to have Aegis Ashore. I think they only needed two or three batteries to cover the whole of Japan. A high end SAM is good for resisting nuclear blackmail, when the other side threatens to fire only one or two missiles, thinking we would not fire a boatload of Trident in response (mistake). However, MAD/CASD is the response to deter a large scale attack.

That’s the issue with CASD, it’s only real purpose is in response to an all out war. The CASD with its 10 to 16 Tridents can have up to 8 multiple independent re-entry vehicles (MIRVs) per missile. Each with a 100kt thermonuclear warhead. So if some muppet launched a single weapon at the UK. The UK wouldn’t be able to use the CASD due to proportionality. If one missile was launched some MIRVs could be programmed to not be armed leaving one to hit the primary target. But that would be a massive waste, plus organizing the recovery of the …  Read more »

I am more worried by firing a single missile & thus giving away where our Trident boat is. Which is why, I would rather have a high end SAM to deal with one or two incoming missiles.

There’s always one Vanguard class boat in reserve at Faslane, in case there’s an issue with the CASD.

But you’re right in that the Country should have some means of protection, against a rogue state launching one or two missiles at us. But we should also have a means of proportional pay back.

Russia has 6000 warheads/bombs not 6000 missiles and only 1500 deployed. They would need most if that to wreck the USA. We are a small potato so would not get many targeted.

In the days of the Soviet Union, they would have attacked UK with 60 warheads. Probably still their planning today.

They had 27,000 active then now just 1500 but only a fraction of those will be available I.e 25% of subs at sea etc. who knows how many of their land ones work and how many would survive NATO counter strike. Not saying we would get every Russian warhead but ABM shield may get a lot. It’s worth a few billion out of the defence budget.

I have long wanted the UK to have one or two batteries of a high end SAM, to defend against one or two missiles coming our way.

What’s a nuclear weapon dropped on London between friends…

Manchester and the North would get the rail investment it needs.

It’s one way to do levelling up.

Does London need a glass car park?

10,000? No, the way defensive weapons are going is direct energy burst. The systems that the UK and US are going down the road on will be laser systems, including any aerial defence system..

I didn’t say I would buy them. I said that what we would need for a worst case scenario

if you are talking lasers than that would need to be a space based system as it’s no use having these things explode close to our shores

others have rightly pointed out a more balanced approach and I am sure we could get a version of ceptor that could off the ballistic capability.

directed energy will take over there is no doubt in my mind about that but when is another thing entirely

At the time of the Cold War, it was estimated the USSR allocated about 60 warheads for the UK. The rest, the USA and Europe.

SAMP/T £ 500 million each with a coverage of 150 Km one in central Scotland, one NE England, one for Liverpool/Manchester, one for Yorkshire, one for west midlands and East Midlands, one for London and one for Bristol Channel area. That’s most of the major cities covered then. Very doable.

Like it. And Aster/Samp/t missile inventory can be shared with the Navy’s T45/T83s.

An Aegis ashore battery with SM-3 can cover a land radius of 310 miles. That was from Japan’s study, they would need 3 to cover the whole of Japan. So one in East Anglia and one on the Scottish Borders would cover the UK , and provide protection for RN forces in the North Sea Both Belgium and the Netherlans have considered it for their frigates, so potentially these new UK radars could provide tracking data to Nato allies. It depends of course if the UK feels the need to fund SM3 when there is a European wide system already …  Read more »

I suspect it’s main purpose is to protect the US, they have the interceptors. We are incidental beneficiaries.

Yes, I know what you mean. Good to have, but needs some force behind it.

Totally agree, just let’s us track ICBM’s obliterating our cities. I was thinking the other day, given the densely packed nature of the UK and the limited number of Russian launched SLBM and ICBM that a ballistic missile defence system is now much more viable for the UK. Russian launched missiles travelling shorter distance travel at slower speed more like intermediate range ballistic missiles. SM3 and Aster 30 blk 2 can both intercept 3000 mile range missiles and just 7 SAMPT/T launchers could cover the majority of the UK population centres. Russia is no pt the Soviet Union. At best …  Read more »

The picture shown is of Fylingdales early warning system. The purchase is for a completely different package of hardware capable of taking down missiles. That’s my understanding anyway.

It certainly sounds as if it is going to be part of a future proper layered defence system. The extended range CAMM, Iron Dome and Arrow3. Fixed and mobile land systems. Naval systems etc.

Fantastic news. As important as everything else is, (and there is a lot of important stuff that we either want or need to upgrade/replace legacy systems) this is something I don’t think we can do without. The proliferation of ballistic missiles and the ability for many potentially unstable or unfriendly nations to operate them make this vital. It would be very nice to have some way to shoot the blighters down to go with it as well. Asap please. Ships are our best bet to carry them as we re an island, but as unrealistic as it probably would be, …  Read more »

I bet first missiles are heading straight for the radar then. Or fire shorter range supersonic cruise missile at radar followed by the large fixed missile silos followed by the ballistic missiles. What the point in this massive expense and running costs? Give government a few minutes warning. Certainly no one lower than the top tier will have any time to duck and cover. Who is this attack coming from and more importantly what is the point of an extra early warning. We have one and are linked to the the USA systems. Is this one mobile?

I share your enthusiasm, this is an absolute priority in defence-up there with our own nuclear weapons program. The more assets related to this the better, the only disappointing part of this is another purchase off the states but hey if there making it right. Also with them potentially basing this in Cyprus are they keeping tabs on China?

If it is based in Cyprus it not going to help UK defence very much but it will help the US. If it does go there it looks like a UK contribution to the US defense budget with the associated political contributions over there.

Thats not the case. They are dealing with threats from the middle east. Fylingdales would already be feeding data from anything launched from the far East of Russia over the poles. EvenThose ground based systems “see” 5000km. The truck based AN/TPY-2 has a massive footprint , said to be able to send its search kods 2900 miles at a max search. From Japan they spy into North Korea, From South Korea they scan Chinese airspace, much to China’s annoyance. Even Austalian OTH arrays are deployed to the northern states, far away from they population centres. A missile launched from Iran …  Read more »

Oh dear your strategic consideration assessments are limited, typical amateur russkie. Good job Poop Tin has shown to the world how inept your military is, as not only will it increas NATO unity and budgets, he has made us realise that the scary Russkie bear is actually a rather underfed, smelly, scraggy ginger tom cat which is losing most of its fur.

A Ballistic Missile Detection system, not a Missile Defence system. There’s a BIG difference!! Now we actually need to obtain a Defence system…….

Great news. Now let’s get some way of actually shooting them down so that we’re not just watching our demise coming towards us like some twisted reality TV show.

How about we increase Sky Sabre to 30-40 units at least and fit at least a dozen of them with Aster 30NG? Might as well go the Aster 30 route to have some commonality with the Type 45s.

That would require a vastly more complex radar and command and control system than Sky Sabre has. You could work the other way round ir buy an off the shelf mid/upper tier air defence system and then integrate camm missiles.

Area defence and ABM.defence requires a system far more complex than Sky Sabre.

You need land based SAMPSON. Doable but expensive. We actually already have one for testing

Upgrade the T45s in all respects – then we’d have our BMD system.

No we wouldnt Barry. 6 destroyers that have a primary task of air defence of surface fleet and primarily carrier battle groups. If we had order 12 type 45s then yes we would have enough. 6 is an inadequate number to be relied upon to provide a uk wide BMD interceptor capability. Maybe add this capability to type 45 but ensure until tupe 83 enters srrvice ideally in large numbers that uk plc has a land based BMD solution

Accelerate the T83, upgrade the T45 then position the hulls around the UK. Decommission anything not needed for BMD and dry dock if possible.

Even if it was incorporated with a anti missile system, I should imagine that Russia would be able to launch a saturated attack of conventional missiles first to deplete the defences and then Nukes. Even if Nuclear missiles were intercepted en route I should imagine that their detonation at altitude would cause fallout over a huge area. A Nuclear War is too frightening to contemplate and as i have said beforeit might only take one mad man on his way out…

On that note scary to hear this morning that only Putin and 3 very close aids actually knew about his plan for invading Ukraine even the defence staff and Generals were kept in the dark till the order was given. Subsequently a very close FSB associate and ideologue who told him taking the Country would be a doddle is under house arrest and up to 12 Generals sacked. No wonder there was a lot of shocked faces to be seen around him. All sounds historically very familiar.

The issue is with the conventional warhead missiles that are launched first. How do you tell they aren’t nukes? Once they have hit there targets perhaps. But the standard counter is to launch ours as soon as their trajectories have been worked out. Then hoping the other side realizes we have also launched and transmits the abort codes. Even the USA cancelled the conventional warheads program that Trident was going to get. They realized Russia would interpret them as nukes if they were launched. There are no ICBMs with conventional warheads for this reason. The method they would likely use …  Read more »

I’m not sure I like the sound of some of the mood music around what could be a negotiated settlement. Putin is basically just reiteration is demands for the splitting of Ukraine and the disarming of the rump Ukraine, what worries is that a U.K. defence minister has said if there was a deal in which Ukraine disarmed The U.K. could act as it’s defence guarantor. WTF, NATO will not guarantee Ukraine’s sovereignty but we will….that makes no sense what so ever as the U.K. land forces would simply end up being a tripwire for article 5, which in that …  Read more »

Not so sure our land forces would end up being just a tripwire. From what we’ve seen in Ukraine a single UK armoured brigade with some artillery, Apaches and a squadron of Typhoons, alongside Ukrainian forces, would have massacred the Russian forces they came up against.

im sure British army Brigade would be be able to hold its own, but Ukriane is a vast county and needs a vast army to cover the ground that needs defending. It would be the same old story, it does not matter how good you are, you can still only be in one place at a time.

Very true, just as you would need a vast army to quickly invade a country that size.

And an army which was able to actually fight in a modern, skilled combined way, which the Russkies have shown they certainly are not.

Aww, don’t put yourself down, the PARA that have retired could handle the Russians 😉

However, no way I’m stagging on for traffic control in the RCZ – huge distances.

On a serious note, seeing images of civi trains in daylight – is that another tragedy waiting to happen?

Mate once I’ve took my ibuprofen and PARAcetamol (see what I did there) us old gits could rev up and bitchslap a few russkie conscripts, you could come along as I’m sure the car park will need organising….🤣😇!! Again mate seriously I’m sure there will be more pain to come before we get to a better place! Poop Tin is genuinely off his rocker and the more he gets pushed into a corner the more we need some professional Russkie top brass to remove him!

Ooh, you nasty beast you, we won the Battle of the Ratpit sometimes… albeit the Germans were with us.

German Shepherd Dogs that is.

Something is seriously wrong with MilInt if this cluster is really the great Russian army – I don’t understand how they can get it so wrong.

However, you’re right, the Russians will have to remove the tosser; the world must move on and China is the real threat.

(Did any PARA serve in Korea 50 – 53?).

You do get the impression, a few someone’s just got a phone call that effectively said……charge….apparently they did not even keep their battle groups in any cohesive form….just threw everything. They could as fast as they could into a n Easter. European mud pit. From reading it seems that only Putin and a couple of others knew they were actually going to invade, until it pretty much happened….so all those Russian army units had no idea they were invading Ukraine until they were told to go and invade…..which would explain a lot. I know a few respected observes of Russian …  Read more »

They have certainly proved to the world that we no longer need to fear the Russkie mil, just it’s crazy head shed and it’s nukes! The Russkie mil is still conscript heavy, no matter if they get jiffed to stay on for another 12 months and be called professional! The lack of combined arms manoeuvre and basic skills and drills, is shocking! The longer it goes on the harder it gets for the Russkie lads as Ukraine gets more weapons and support from NATO. The easy days for the Russians are over…..if they ever had any! Cheers.

All we have to hope is that Putin does not try and burn it all down with nuclear weapons.

Didn’t we already do that back in 1993 in Bucharest? Ukraine saide they would give up there nukes and we and the US would provide security to them…🤔

As always, the devil is in the detail. The 1993 wording was very weak, and boils down to little more than an obligation to consult in the event of Ukrainian security being jeopardised.

The US, UK and Russia agree to refrain from attacking Ukraine. In the event of a nuclear attack or threat of nuclear attack on Ukraine they will act to get the UN Security Council to provide UN assistance. Worthless where it is the signatory and Security Council member doing the attack/threat……

Not just signatory, I believe Russia was a sponsor! But equally worthless, I agree. I wouldn’t wish to see the U.K. offer protection to Ukraine alone… too risky.

The Defence Minister probably thinks the 5th Loamshire’s could handle the Russians at this stage; they do love talking up our capability, don’t they?

I’m curious as to the details.

Another poorly worded article on defense. It is not a defense system, but a detection system. It’s as if there were the Chain Home radars, but no AA or fighters. Hopefully though this just the first step.

It depends on just how much is to be defended but sadly, to be effective, a defence system would likely cost a large part of our military budget.

“Our military budget”? Is Russia offering the UK an S500 battery as a gift?

Depending on the type of ballistic missile and its targeting system, ie is it a warhead that uses radar ground mapping and a manaoevering body ( which boost glide vehicles may need), then potentially a multiple megawatt powered beam from an ground based AESA might actually have a defensive impact by frying the inboard sensors. NATO already is deploying SM3 for instance, if it can provide targeting data to Aegis ashore in Poland , that by nature makes it a defence system.

Not sure how this classes as a defence! All it means is we see destruction coming. Since our deterrent is sea based its not like we even need to launch before a first strike wipes out a large chunk of the force.

Reassuring to know that just like everything else the mod circus is responsible for its going to arrive late.

Stick with is bbc radio on air? If not we are all dead. Sub captain it’s up to you now. Much cheaper than a fancy radar

Given the depth of radar expertise in this country, I’m surprised we had to go to the seppos for this

This isnt a BMD system. Just early warning and detection. It wont enable the uk military to intercept an incoming ballistic missile threat. Unless this is just first phase of a package to deliver that capability? No word on that.

Nothing like a Russian invasion of Ukraine to open the eyes of our European allies. Funny how just a few years ago President Trump told Europe to start pulling their own weight and invest more into defense. And most European countries, not all ignored him and made fun of him. Now they are all rushing to arm themselves and pleading for US troops, aircraft to protect themselves.

Funny how Trump said a few weeks ago that Putins invasion of the Ukraine was a genius move LMAO!!!! Sorry dan but you even out trump the Russian trolls with your retarded views , Russian trolls have a excuse , maybe you are one or you just were not brought up right lol.

Thank you for reminding him. I guess the Trumkins didn’t think the rest of us saw their leader calling Putin a genius when the invasion started.

The trouble is with these trumptards any sense deludes them , they are more dangerous than any Russian troll who I’m sure baited them with ease , it all comes down to nice and white and Christian like with these c#nts.

Few on here sadly blinded by their Trump derangement syndrome. Clearly not grasping that Trump was merely referring to Putin’s act of genius(that he warned us of, but was mocked, no one is laughing now thoughi see) ie. that Putin got the west to dance to his tune, Biden to declare that he wouldn’t act to stop a Russian aggression or invasion of Ukraine, as long as he didn’t go any further pretty please, and Putin got mainland Europe, especially the Germans, totally dependent on his oil and gas, pretty much funding his invasions of Ukraine,not to mention allowing him …  Read more »

Funny how Trump said a few weeks ago that Putins invasion of the Ukraine was a genius move LMAO!!!!

Maybe you should read Machiavelli – all books…

Trump called Putin a genius for invading Ukraine. What world are you living in?

£533 million – and that’s just the cost of American supplied equipment and services. What would be the full cost of building the facility in say Cyprus – £1 billion? That is serious money when the equipment budget is already over committed. So where is this money coming from, three obvious options:

• A project is about to be cancelled – Ajax?
• A project will be reduced in size (one less T26?) or delayed several years (FSS ships?)
• The MOD is confident that there will be increase in the UK’s defence budget.

The RUSSIA STRONK! Is strong in this thread.

For all the dimwits screaming about what’s the point of a BMD radar in Cyprus. it will cue the 4 BMD mission Arleigh Burke DDGs based in Spain.

Didn’t Romania(??) sign up to the system as well?

Why place in Cyprus?

It will see further into Russia and the Middle East than Fylingdales? Even more so if they use Troodos as the location.

Would it be better to delay projects like the flagship? Something tells me that the ballistic detection system is more important.

Boris needs a floating wine bar. Less Press intrusion.

I think what people are missing here with regard to “how many missiles” is important. The best time to intercept an ICBM is right after launch, and while it is in transit. A missile launched from a ballistic missile submarine, could be close enough to intercept in its launch phase. You would also have a high chance of interception in its transit phase. 3 minutes to launch, and maybe 10 minutes to transit. ICBM’s launched from silos or mobile launchers, deep within Russia, would not be possible to intercept at launch, as the range would be far too great. They …  Read more »

It’s got to make you smile when there are all these deferrals to save a £100m here, £200m there, that sounds great considering how many millions or even billions are being potentially squandered elsewhere but surely ABM systems like this need to be brought forward or even held to their original schedule? I’d like, I think we would all like to see the T45 PIP/Camm-Aster upgrades all brought forward a tad too! This has got to be affecting the RNs ability to have another CSG anytime soon? But good on the UK for purchasing this. I’d like to see 2-3 …  Read more »

As someone above has mentioned Australia already does have OTH Radars (Jindalee?) in the north already and there’s Pine Fap in central Australia. I’m not sure if either are used for ABM coverage. And I Expats comment about bringing forward the T83 five years – no need to wait until mid-late 30s. Have two batches if need be.

Hi Quentin, Jindalee can track an aircraft landing at Karachi airport from central Australia. I can’t comment on its ability to track an ICBM. But satellites were always our first warning system of a launch. They detect the exhaust plume whether land or sea launched. It’s basically instantaneous. If there are not two Vanguard subs on station right now then why aren’t we working 24/7 to get a second one out there?. Only one person keeps threatening a nuclear war and that is his only option if he see defeat, a coup, or assassination looming. He would rather take everyone …  Read more »

I am led to believe that a 2nd boomer is on standby, ready to replace the one on station at relatively short notice, if required. There are not enough to keeps two at sea all the time. For surface ships, it’s generally the rule of three, for submarines, it’s generally a rule of four.

DJ, my take and I hope I am wrong is Putin has put his Strategic Deterrent on 15 min standby. He has moved his immediate and extended family to underground bunkers in Siberia etc. He has threatened to use Nuclear weapons. He can not afford to loose, backdown and fears being replaced either permanently or to retirement. The nuclear option is very much alive. Hence I don’t care what it takes UK needs two Trident subs on station now. It’s also time to max the number and size of the warheads each Trident carries.

Land based BMD? Pinch me. Edit: ah detection not defence, back to reality.

Perhaps there’s a better value solution. The T45 has demonstrated BMD capability. Advance the T83 program by say 5 years then decommission the T45 except systems required for the BMD and position the hulls around the UK, dry docked if possible.

Good thing nobody’s likely to nuke us in the next 7 years eh?

As a side note, does anyone know of we have deployed a second Vanguard boat? We should, to make absolutely sure Putin understands we are calling his bluff. France should do the same. It’s supposed to be the reason for having 4, deploy two in the event of a growing crisis… 30 years of constant defence cuts and ‘Western issues’ such as obsessing over the rights of men to put on frocks and call themselves Brenda etc etc have absolutely given Putin the green light… The Russian head shed thought the West has grown weak, decadent and filled with self …  Read more »

I asked that question upwards of 4 weeks ago.

You’d hope they would get them out if possible.

Something had gone seriously wrong if they don’t or can’t David, we need four European SSBN’s on patrol at the moment, just in case things go seriously wrong….

Putin has to clearly understand that Europe is capable (and will if necessary) of delivering a devastating nuclear retaliation, independent of the US.

That sort of information is obviously above the paygrade of the likes of us – but i would have thought 2 RN SSBN’s out on Patrol is possible, but with only 3 available impossible to sustain for any length of time.

Evening Paul, that’s the point of four boats, one on patrol, one armed and ready to deploy at shot notice, one in alongside maintenance and one in refit.

Four European ‘bombers’ on patrol gives Europe a big stick, independent of US control.

The current situation shows the absolute necessity of a robust nuclear deterrent….

Well… 4* T45 tied up alongside, the T23 fleet hollowed and the Astutes have issues… I’d put money on only one Vanguard being at sea.

Evening John, very much doubt that we have two SSBNs at sea in a patrol posture. Vanguard is still in refit, so we only have 3 available and have only had the 3 for several years. This means that they are being run hard. I think you will find we only have the one at sea, one having got back from patrol and in some form of maintenance, whilst the third is getting ready to relieve the on patrol SSBN. There are currently at least three NATO SSBNs at sea in the Atlantic, more then enough firepower to focus Putin’s …  Read more »

Need to know, and I don’t, but there are probably a couple in the Pacific as well.

The boat programmes need to be increased in pace, irrespective of budget and that means not nicking new parts to refit in-service boats, as was the case with Anson and Astute, but funding the 3 programmes properly; and if an extra Astute could be squeezed in… I’ll get my coat.

Assuming that you mean Astute Dreadnought and SSN(R) when referring to the ‘3 boat programmes’? What makes you think that the builds are not currently funded adequately? After the build issues between last V boat and the first A boat, we are building at a steady rate. Yes we could have had an extra A boat before the Dreadnoughts came in, but we didn’t, and won’t be getting another one either. The question we should be asking is what comes after SSN(R) if we are only building more then 8? As the Dreadnoughts are scheduled to last some 40 odd …  Read more »

The answer to your question is that the build rate is slow. Why? Now, it was reported that Astute was not adequately sourced for spares; they robbed the in builds which delayed them. It’s already been reported that Astute class is delayed and this will impact the delivery of the Dreadnoughts – that’s in the public domain. Late delivery of the Dreads will increase costs of in-service Vanguards. Follow on impact on the Astute replacement and Australia want some of that too. Treasury thinking has to adjust to a new way of defence thinking and that means funding defence properly …  Read more »

Well this is a new development. I was under the impression the US had given up on rail guns, but it’s seems all is not lost on the tech. A new and different use for them. Reminds me of the defense of Atlantis in Stargate. https://www-thedefensepost-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.thedefensepost.com/2022/03/17/general-atomics-railgun-test/amp/?amp_gsa=1&amp_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIKAGwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16476900395550&csi=0&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedefensepost.com%2F2022%2F03%2F17%2Fgeneral-atomics-railgun-test%2F

Yes, the US Navy have shelved BAe’s rail gun project. As they couldn’t solve the rail erosion problem.

The sabot rounds they developed for the rail gun are also guided. They were developed on the back of the collaboration they did with Leonardo developing the guided DART round.

At least the guided rounds called hyper velocity projectiles (HVPs) are being developed for 203mm, 155mm and 5” powdered guns. The US Navy have been testing them since 2018. In 2020 the HVPs were fired from 155 and 203 guns. They destroyed Coyote drone targets during flight, simulating cruise missiles.

Back in the days of Ronny Raygun’s “Star Wars” defence shield, the Americans were concerned about a Rooskie alternative, which was long-range cruise missiles being launched from the Atlantic, or elsewhere. The US Navy counter to that was to try and come up with a long-endurance airship (British) that was on station for a week and equipped with Westinghouse AWACS gear. I don’t know what ultimately became of that, but the UK will also need something reliable to cover this in the 21st Century. What we then do about shooting down is another question…

Ditto re no ABMs, but are HMPG saying that the RAF/US would not notify us of impeding doom or that f y l in g Dales is not adequate in some way ? The MOD need to justify this spend.If a member of parliament reads this please ask a question in the house. It’s looking like a vanity project to me.

Is this a fact? Russia ‘launches hypersonic missile against Ukraine’ Russia said the hypersonic missile Kinzhal hit a warehouse in the western Ivano-Frankivsk region. Mr Putin has previously described the missile as “an ideal weapon”. It is said to travel at 10 times the speed of sound, with a range of 2,000km (1,200 miles), and is nuclear capable but this was a conventional strike. Defence analyst Professor Michael Clarke told Sky News the weapon was developed “for the prospect of apocalyptic war between the superpowers”. He said: “You can’t defend against it. You can’t see it. You can’t prepare for it.” …  Read more »

I wonder who Professor Michael Clarke is? As he seems to think this missile defies the laws of physics!

“Professor Michael Clarke is a Fellow of King’s College London. He was Director General of the Royal United Services Institute from 2017-2015 and is now a Distinguished Fellow at RUSI. Prior to that, he was Professor of Defence Studies at King’s College London and Deputy Vice-Principal for Research Development. In addition to his Visiting role at KCL he is also a Visiting Professor at the University of Exeter, where he is Associate Director of its Strategy and Security Institute. He is Fellow of the University of Aberystwyth and in 2019 was made a Fellow of the Royal College of Defence …  Read more »

So clearly someone who is out of touch with military technology – lol.

Why did he make that statement though, about the Kinzhal missile? As his statement is incorrect.

Every time a Russian Aircraft flies towards the UK and QRA Typhoons are sent up to intercept I feel uneasy because it seems the publicity given to these events by our Media harks back to the days of RAF Fighters intercepting Luftwaffe Bombers en route to Blitz our cities. Trouble is that no self respecting Russian Air Force General intends to send waves of Bombers over when sitting in their silos or at sea he has Ballistic or Hypersonic missiles to do the job with much less risk of failure. For too long Britain has been without a ballistic missile …  Read more »

Does anyone know what radar this will be? Haven’t found anything about what model it is.

Question how knackered will the newest vanguard be be when dreadnoughts come into service? Would it be able to be converted into a guided missle boat like the Ohio’s for cruise/hypersonic land attack quad packing them into the silos. It doesn’t have to be deployed often just maintained and crewed for training with the occasional deployment. This will give us a huge capability for land strike. I think the converted Ohio’s carry 154 cruise missiles but have 4 more silos. Just something on the with list.

I suspect the Vanguards will be unable to carry on past the Dreadnoughts coming into service. Better to build a transition boat i.e. cross between a SSBN & a SSN. Say a Dreadnought shortened to 4 Trident tubes + 4 Virginia payload Tomahawk tubes.

The UK’s missile defense system needs immediate installation !

What is the point of a ballistic warning system that has no means of stopping missiles other than shouting duck!

Horse and bolted springs to mind 🤔

When I read reports on the Uk armedforces I am appalled at inadequate defense of the Uk. The British Government and its MOD are a sham, always to little too late, under protected ships, little or no air defense 103 aircraft to defend nearly seventy million people, and so few ships. Poorly paid troops who,s married quaters are Dickensian and over paid MOD senior civil servants who make serious mistakes in procurement but never take responsibility for their actions it make me sad my grandfather died in WWI serving in the RN and my father fought in WWII. For God …  Read more »

STAY CONNECTED

Britain’s forgotten prison island

British frigate returns home flying battle ensign

British airborne medics ‘deliver care by air’

Frigate work removed from Scottish shipyards

Rolls-Royce supplies mtu Kinetic PowerPacks

Romanian Patriot battery conducts deployment exercise

BAE receives $318m contract for M109 Self-Propelled Howitzers

London to temporarily join EU to smooth over security pact

• International
• Publications

Maps show how US, Israeli weaponry was used against Iran's aerial attack

Israel is weighing its response to an Iranian attack carried out by an estimated 300 drones and missiles Saturday, Iran’s first direct strike against Israel ever and a move that could lead to open warfare between the two nations.

The attack caused relatively minor damage, officials said. About 99% of the Iranian weapons were shot down with the help of the U.S., U.K. and Jordan, according to Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari, a spokesman for the Israeli military and a defense force post on Instagram.

The attack is an escalation of the conflict between Israel and Iran and could spark a military escalation that could involve the U.S. and other countries and alter the  Israel-Hamas war  in the  Gaza Strip .

U.S. and European military forces intercepted more than 80 uncrewed one-way attack aerial vehicles and at least six ballistic missiles, the U.S. Central Command said Sunday.

In the Mediterranean Sea, two U.S. guided-missile destroyers, the USS Carney and the USS Arleigh Burke , shot down four to six ballistic missiles , the U.S. Naval Institute reported Sunday.

Unable to view our graphics? Click here to see them.  

F-15E Strike Eagles from two squadrons shot down about 70 attack drones , according to The Washington Post.

Most of the drones and missile were fired from inside Iran. A few penetrated Israeli defenses, seriously injuring a 10-year-old girl with shrapnel and causing minor damage to a military base, Israeli officials said.

Did Israel bomb the Iranian Embassy in Syria?

Iran said it launched the attack in retaliation for an airstrike by Israeli warplanes on the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, on April 1. Iran said seven of its military advisers, including three senior commanders, were killed in the attack. Israel never confirmed it was behind the attack.

Iran said Sunday that it would not retaliate further unless Israel counterattacked.

What weapons did Iran use?

According to Israeli officials, aerial weapons used in the attack included:

• 170 Shahed-136 drones
• 120 ballistic missiles
• 30 cruise missiles

Ballistic missiles are powered by one or more rockets that lift the missile into the atmosphere on an arching trajectory . The rockets then shut down and the unpowered missile descends to its target.

Cruise missiles are powered by jet engines. They can be launched from the ground, air or sea. The missiles can fly very low and are difficult to detect.

Cruise missiles are self-guiding but can be controlled by remote operators with cameras.

How the Iranian attack unfolded

The attack started at about 3:30 p.m Eastern time, according to an analysis by the Institute for the Study of War . It consisted of at least three waves over several hours.

Drones were launched first; ballistic missiles were fired about an hour later so they would strike Israel at about the same time, according to a statement from Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps that was reported by the BBC.

The Defense Department said U.S. forces from undisclosed bases in the region intercepted dozens of missiles and drones launched from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Military forces from the U.S., U.K., Jordan and Israel began intercepting drones and missiles outside Israeli airspace between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. Eastern, the war study institute said.

Israeli defense systems helped thwart the attack

Israel's Iron Dome and Arrow 3 systems were credited with shooting down most of the drones and missiles from Iran.

The Iron Dome is a mobile all-weather missile defense system, designed to detect and shoot down short-range rockets fired into Israel. It’s also used against enemy artillery and drones.

How the Iron Dome system works:

Iron Dome can detect and engage rockets up to 40 miles away. Each of its 10 batteries can protect a 58-square-mile area.

It’s a portable system, towed by trucks. The batteries are units with three main elements:

• ELM 2084 Multimission Radar (MMR):  Radar that detects incoming threats from Palestinian territories and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon.
• Battle management and weapon control system (BMC):  A computer that tracks a rocket’s trajectory and calculates whether it will hit an inhabited area. Rockets presenting the greatest threat are targeted. Rockets that will fall into uninhabited regions are ignored.
• Tamir missiles and launchers:  Each battery has three to four launchers, each with up to 20 Tamirs. The control system launches a missile that will intercept and destroy the incoming rocket.

Work on the Iron Dome began in 2007. It became operational in March 2011 and has been upgraded over the years. Its success rate has  exceeded 90% , says its manufacturer, Raytheon says.

Iron Dome is designed as protection against rockets at low altitudes. It's part of Israel's three-tiered air defense system that includes:

◾   David's Sling :  Defense against short-range ballistic missiles, large-caliber rockets and cruise missiles.

◾ Arrow-3 :  Defense against medium-range ballistic missiles.

Israel also uses U.S. Patriot missiles to defend itself from enemy aircraft and drones.

SOURCE USA TODAY Network reporting and research; Reuters; U.S. Department of Defense; Institute for the Study of War ; Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation; U.S. Naval Institute

• National Security
• Environment
• Special Investigations
• More Ways to Donate
• Impact & Reports
• Join Newsletter
• Become a Source

© THE INTERCEPT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

U.S., Not Israel, Shot Down Most Iran Drones and Missiles

American forces did most of the heavy lifting responding to Iran’s retaliation for the attack on its embassy in Damascus.

• Share on Facebook
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on WhatsApp

The United States shot down more drones and missiles than Israel did on Saturday night during Iran’s attack, The Intercept can report. 

More than half of Iran’s weapons were destroyed by U.S. aircraft and missiles before they ever reached Israel. In fact, by commanding a multinational air defense operation and scrambling American fighter jets, this was a U.S. military triumph. 

The extent of the U.S. military operation is unbeknownst to the American public, but the Pentagon coordinated a multination, regionwide defense extending from northern Iraq to the southern Persian Gulf on Saturday. During the operation, the U.S., U.K., France, and Jordan all shot down the majority of Iranian drones and missiles. In fact, where U.S. aircraft originated from has not been officially announced, an omission that has been repeated by the mainstream media. Additionally, the role of Saudi Arabia is unclear, both as a base for the United States and in terms of any actions by the Saudi military.

In calculating the size of Iran’s attack and the overwhelming role of the United States, U.S. military sources say that the preliminary estimate is that half of Iran’s weapons experienced technical failures of some sort.

“U.S. intelligence estimates that half of the weapons fired by Iran failed upon launch or in flight due to technical issues,” a U.S. Air Force senior officer told The Intercept. Of the remaining 160 or so, the U.S. shot down the majority, the officer said. The officer was granted anonymity to speak about sensitive operational matters.

Asked to comment on the United States shooting down half of Iran’s drones and missiles, the Israel Defense Forces and the White House National Security Council did not respond at the time of publication. The Pentagon referred The Intercept to U.S. Central Command, which pointed to a press release saying CENTCOM forces supported by U.S. European Command destroyers “successfully engaged and destroyed more than 80 one-way attack uncrewed aerial vehicles (OWA UAV) and at least six ballistic missiles intended to strike Israel from Iran and Yemen.”

Israel says that more than 330 drones, low-flying cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles were launched by Iran, including some 30 Paveh-type cruise missiles, 180 or so Shahed drones, and 120 Emad intermediate-range ballistic missiles, as well as other types of weapons. All of the drones and cruise missiles were launched from Iranian territory, Israel says. Some additional missiles were also launched from inside Yemen, according to IDF data.

Most media reports say that none of the cruise missiles or drones ever entered Israeli airspace. According to a statement by IDF spokesperson Adm. Daniel Hagari, some 25 cruise missiles “were intercepted by IAF [Israeli Air Force] fighter jets outside the country’s borders,” most likely over Jordanian territory.

Israel’s statement that it shot down the majority of Iranian “cruise missiles” is probably an exaggeration. According to U.S. military sources and preliminary reporting, U.S. and allied aircraft shot down the majority of drones and cruise missiles. U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said that the Royal Air Force Typhoons intercepted “a number” of Iranian weapons over Iraqi and Syrian airspace.

The Jordanian government has also hinted that its aircraft downed some Iranian weapons. “We will intercept every drone or missile that violates Jordan’s airspace to avert any danger. Anything posing a threat to Jordan and the security of Jordanians, we will confront it with all our capabilities and resources,” Jordan’s Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said during an interview on the Al-Mamlaka news channel.

French fighters also shot down some drones and possibly cruise missiles.

U.S. aircraft, however, shot down “more than” 80 Iranian weapons, according to U.S. military sources. President Joe Biden spoke with members of two F-15E Strike Eagle aircraft squadrons to “commend them for their exceptional airmanship and skill in defending Israel from an unprecedented aerial attack by Iran.” Two F-15 squadrons — the 494th Fighter Squadron based at Royal Air Force Lakenheath in the United Kingdom, and the 335th Fighter Squadron from Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina — are forward deployed to the Middle East, at least half of the planes at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan.

Two U.S. warships stationed in the Mediterranean — the USS Carney (DDG 64) and the USS Arleigh Burke (DDG 51) — shot down at least six ballistic missiles, the Pentagon says. The War Zone is reporting that those ships may have fired Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) interceptors in combat for the first time. A U.S. Army Patriot surface-to-air missile battery in Erbil, Iraq, shot down at least one ballistic missile. Wreckage of an Iranian missile was also found outside Erbil, as well as in an open area outside the province of Najaf.

Iran’s attack marks the first time since 1991 that a nation state has attacked Israel directly. Contending with extremely long distances and utilizing scores of decoys and swarm tactics to attempt to overwhelm Middle East air defenses, Iran managed to hit two military targets on the ground in Israel, including Nevatim Air Base. According to the IDF, five missiles hit Nevatim Air Base and four hit another base. Despite the low number of munitions successfully landing, the dramatic spectacle of hundreds of rockets streaking across the night sky in Syria, Iraq, and Iran has left Tehran contented with its show of force. 

Iran “has achieved all its goals, and in our view the operation has ended, and we do not intend to continue,” Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, said over the weekend. Still, he cautioned, “If the Zionist regime or its supporters demonstrate reckless behavior, they will receive a decisive and much stronger response.”

Join Our Newsletter

Original reporting. fearless journalism. delivered to you..

The U.S. coordinated the overall operation from the Combined Air Operations Center at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, where the overall commander was Lt. Gen. Alexus G. Grynkewich, the air commander of CENTCOM. “We take whatever assets we have that are in theater … under our tactical control or in a direct support role across the joint force and the coalition, and we stitch them together so that we can synchronize the fires and effects when we get into that air defense fight,” Grynkewich told Air & Space Forces Magazine after the Iran attack. “We’re trying to stitch together partners in the region who share a perspective of a threat, share concern of the threats to stability in the region — which primarily emanate from Iran with a large number of ballistic missiles — and be in a position where we’re able to share information, share threat warning. And the ultimate goal is to get to a much deeper and fuller integration. We’ve made tremendous progress.”

In a call immediately following Iran’s attack, Biden reportedly told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that “Israel really came out far ahead in this exchange” and warned of the “risks of escalation” — as if that hadn’t already happened.

Correction: April 16, 2024 A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to Mohammad Bagheri as the president of Iran. He is the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces.

Contact the author:

Israel and Israel Alone Kicked Off This Escalation — In a Bid to Drag U.S. Into War With Iran

Israel Conflict Spreads to 16 Nations as Biden Admin Says There’s No War

Iran and U.S. Wage a Shadow War Behind Gaza Conflict

U.S. Quietly Expands Secret Military Base in Israel

Latest stories.

A Prosecutor Asked Texas to Kill Melissa Lucio. Now He Says She Should Be Freed.

Liliana Segura, Jordan Smith

If the courts agree to vacate the conviction, Lucio will have spent 16 years on death row for a crime that never happened.

Israel’s War on Gaza

Columbia Law School Faculty Condemn Administration for Mass Arrests and Suspensions

Prem Thakker

The blanket suspension of student protesters casts “serious doubt on the University’s respect for the rule-of-law values that we teach,” 54 law professors wrote.

Israel Attack on Iran Is What World War III Looks Like

Ken Klippenstein, Daniel Boguslaw

Like countless other hostilities, the stealthy Israeli missile and drone strike on Iran doesn’t risk war. It is war.

Join Our Newsletter Original reporting. Fearless journalism. Delivered to you.

Russia's firing new, long-range Kh-69 cruise missiles, war experts say, piling on the misery for Ukraine's dwindling air defense

• Russian forces have deployed a new cruise missile, the Institute for the Study of War said.
• The Kh-69 was used in an attack on a major power station near Kyiv this week.
• The Kh-69 is a leap forward in Russian tactical munitions.

Russian Forces are deploying a new, long-range cruise missile, known as the Kh-69, as it steps up attacks on Ukraine's energy infrastructure.

The Washington DC-based think tank, the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), noted in its Friday report that the new air-to-surface missiles were part of Russia's "continued efforts to improve strike packages and penetrate Ukraine's degraded air defense."

Russia has renewed its attacks against Ukraine's energy infrastructure in recent weeks, exploiting Kyiv's dwindling air defense systems.

"We need air defense systems and other defense assistance, not just turning a blind eye and having lengthy discussions," President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said in a post on X.

The post was in response to a Russian missile attack overnight on April 11 that destroyed the Trypillia Thermal Power Plant. The plant is one of the primary energy suppliers to Ukraine's capital, Kyiv. The plant was hit by the new Kh-69 missiles, according to the Ukrainian military.

"ISW has not previously observed the Russian use of Kh-69 missiles in Ukraine," it said.

"Russian forces have reportedly launched Kh-69 missiles from 400 kilometers away from their targets, exceeding a previous estimated range of 300 kilometers and the 200-kilometer range of the most recent Kh-59MK2 variant," wrote the ISW.

Related stories

Illia Yevlash, a spokesperson for Ukraine's Air Force, confirmed on Friday that Russia had launched the new missiles during its massive aerial assault on Thursday.

"This is an improved system of the Kh-59 version," Yevlash said.

"We are currently establishing what kind of missile it was, what type it was. These are fresh missiles with parts manufactured in 2023. That is, we can see that Russia is constantly trying to produce new missiles."

Yevlash said Russia was manufacturing the Kh-69 domestically, but that continued production relied on the ability to source key components from abroad. ISW analysts noted that while the Russian stockpiles and production capability of these Kh-69 missiles are unclear, "Russia is unlikely to be able to produce them at a significantly greater speed or quantity than its other domestically produced missiles."

The Kh-69 is Russia's latest cruise missile

Reports that Russia was employing the Kh-69 first appeared on Ukrainian Telegram channels in early February.

On February 7, a Ukrainian military blogger posted a photo on Telegram purporting to show the destroyed rear fins of a Kh-69. A Ukrainian war monitor account, which tracks Russian aviation activity, claimed that three Kh-69s were fired at Ukraine overnight on February 7-8.

In September last year, the UK-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) think tank reported that the Kh-69 was still undergoing testing. It described the missile as an "air-launched land-attack cruise missile likely akin to the European Storm Shadow or Taurus KEPD 350 missiles."

According to The War Zone, the Kh-69 was developed by Raduga, part of Russia's Tactical Missile Corporation. The missile weighs around 1,700 pounds, has an operating speed of up to 621 miles per hour, and has the option of either a penetration or a cluster warhead weighing up to 680 pounds. The missile's shape offers some degree of reduced radar signature.

Russian forces can launch the missiles from Su-34 and Su-35 tactical aircraft rather than solely from strategic bombers.

Watch: Ukraine says it shot down 6 hypersonic missiles over Kyiv during 'exceptional' night of attacks

• Main content

latest in World News

Swedish archaeologists find 'completely sensational' discovery in...

Moscow court rejects WSJ reporter's Evan Gershkovich’s appeal,...

2 Malaysian military helicopters collide midair, killing all 10...

Meta spokesman gets 6-year prison sentence by Russian court after...

Paging Doctor John: Chinese public toilets now scan your urine...

Tourist plunges 250 feet to her death into active volcano while...

Airline passenger filmed beating flight attendants, cops -- and...

Haiti capital now a 'battlefield' as gangs take control ahead of...

• How Israel defeated 99% of Iran missiles and drones — with the help of US and an unlikely ally
• View Author Archive
• Get author RSS feed

Thanks for contacting us. We've received your submission.

Goliath, meet David’s Sling.

Israel managed to shoot down 99% of the 300 deadly suicide drones and missiles that Iran launched at the Jewish state on Saturday night using an advanced air defense system known as David’s Sling — in addition to an array of other anti-missile capabilities.

Israel also had help from the US, the UK and an unlikely Arab ally.

Not a single drone or cruise missile fired by Iran and its proxies made it through, according to Israeli media. And only a few of Iran’s more advanced ballistic missiles struck Israel.

Despite facing a direct attack from Iran for the first time in modern history, Israel appears to have suffered very little damage, and only one casualty is known so far — a 7-year-old Bedouin girl.

“So the numbers are still are not 100% clear, but I understand 120 ballistic missiles, around 30 cruise missiles were flied, around 170 explosive drones — explosive UAVs that will route,” Israeli military spokesman Lt. Col. (R) Peter Lerner told CNN.

About 40 rockets were also fired into Israel from Hezbollah in Lebanon.

“The same types of munitions that they have given to the Houthis, the same types of munitions that are being used against Ukraine.”

300+ launches. 99% interception rate. This is the breakdown of Iran's attack last night: pic.twitter.com/aRPvxSutW2 — Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) April 14, 2024

While the “Iron Dome” is famous for shooting down rockets fired from Hezbollah and Hamas, it took much more advanced anti-missile systems to intercept the huge barrage that Iran sent to Israel.

Nearly all threats that Israel intercepted were shot down by fighter aircraft equipped with air-to-air missiles; or by David’s Sling, an air defense system used to track and eliminate drones and medium range missiles; or by the Arrow 2 or Arrow 3 missiles — which are designed to destroy ballistic missiles in space, according to the Jerusalem Post .

Footage of the attacks shared by the IDF on X shows fiery missiles soaring through the air before being shot down.

Israelis’ reality in the last hours: pic.twitter.com/VXeHM8WqJi — Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) April 14, 2024

Israel began shooting down projectiles around midnight as cruise missiles were launched from Iran toward Israel. The US was reportedly intercepting drones over Iraq and Syria.

The Israeli military also posted images of an F-35I stealth fighter returning to base after it was scrambled to protect Israeli airspace.

The US-designed fifth-generation fighter jet is capable of firing air-to-air missiles that can take out drones and missiles from many miles away — beyond the visual range of the pilot.

Watch the F-35I Adir fighter jets return to Nevatim Airbase after successfully protecting Israel’s airspace: pic.twitter.com/ap5gPLphPD — Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) April 14, 2024

The US and other allies also aided in the “historically effective” interception of  explosive drones and missiles fired at Israel , and President Biden called America’s “ironclad commitment to the security of Israel.”

National Security spokesman John Kirby told CNN on Sunday that the US intercepted “several dozen” missiles and drones.

Catch up on the latest news of Iran’s attack on Israel

• Oil prices expected to rise after Iran attack on Israel
• ‘Biden is weak’: President draws fire for muted response to Iran attack on Israel
• 7-year-old Arab girl is only known casualty of Iran attack
• Biden tells Netanyahu US will not engage in counteroffensive against Iran, calls Saturday a win for Israel: report

The US currently has Patriot missile batteries protecting American troops in northern Iraq, as well as the USS Eisenhower aircraft carrier group in the Red Sea.

Both could have potentially used their air defense weapons to target and shoot down Iranian drones as missiles.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the US also moved two additional destroyers — which specialize in shooting down incoming missiles and aircraft — into the region.

Two destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean intercepted three Iranian ballistic missiles over Israel, according to CNN.

US warplanes also intercepted targets.

The UK and France also confirmed their military assets in the Middle East shot down some of Iran’s barrage.

This is what a 99% interception rate looks like. Operational footage from the Aerial Defense System protecting the Israeli airspace: pic.twitter.com/eAwcUPUDw2 — Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) April 14, 2024

Additional help came from Jordan — a onetime enemy of Israel, which is now a US ally.

US-made F-16 fighter jets flown by the Royal Jordanian Air Force scrambled to shoot down incoming Iranian drones, the country’s military confirmed.

The country denied it was helping Israel, but said it was protecting its own airspace from threats to Jordanian citizens.

Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke after the attack. Following the call, Biden said he reaffirmed “America’s ironclad commitment to the security of Israel,” adding that “Israel demonstrated a remarkable capacity to defend against and defeat even unprecedented attacks – sending a clear message to its foes that they cannot effectively threaten the security of Israel.”

Follow along for live updates on Iran’s attack on Israel

Biden also told Netanyahu that the US would not take part in any offensive operations against Iran, CNN reported on Sunday morning.

According to CNN, Biden told Netanyahu that Israel should consider their success in intercepting the Iranian attack a “win.”

Biden also told Netanyahu the US would not participate in any offensive operations against Iran, according to Axios.

By Sunday morning, Hezbollah fired an additional 30 rockets from Lebanon toward northern Israel, the group taking responsibility for the strikes saying they came in response to Israeli strikes on towns in southern Lebanon earlier that night.

One of the rockets fell in Katzrin, causing damage to property but no injuries.

The attack comes after the Islamic Republic accused Israel of killing top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Mohammad Reza Zahedi, who was a top coordinator with Hezbollah, on April 1.

With Post wires.

Share this article:

Advertisement

Advertisement

A Look at Iran’s Military Capabilities

The direct military confrontation between Iran and Israel has brought renewed attention to Iran’s armed forces. What are they capable of?

• Share full article

By Farnaz Fassihi

• Published April 12, 2024 Updated April 14, 2024

The start of a direct military confrontation between Iran and Israel has brought renewed attention to Iran’s armed forces. Early this month, Israel attacked a building in Iran’s diplomatic compound in the Syrian capital, Damascus, killing seven of Iran’s senior commanders and military personnel .

Iran vowed to retaliate, and did so about two weeks later, starting a broad aerial attack on Israel on Saturday involving hundreds of drones and missiles aimed at targets inside Israel and the territory it controls.

Here’s a look at Iran’s military and its capabilities.

Why is Iran’s military relevant right now?

Israeli officials had said they would respond to any attack by Iran with a counterattack, which could prompt further retaliation from Iran and possibly expand into a wider regional war. There is even a chance that a conflict of that sort could drag in the United States, although Washington has made clear it had nothing to do with the Damascus attack.

Analysts say that Iran’s adversaries, primarily the United States and Israel, have avoided direct military strikes on Iran for decades, not wishing to tangle with Tehran’s complex military apparatus. Instead, Israel and Iran have been engaged in a long shadow war via air, sea, land and cyberattacks, and Israel has covertly targeted military and nuclear facilities inside Iran and killed commanders and scientists.

“There is a reason Iran has not been struck,” said Afshon Ostovar, an associate professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School and an expert on Iran’s military. “It’s not that Iran’s adversaries fear Iran. It’s that they realize any war against Iran is a very serious war.”

What sort of military threat does Iran pose?

The Iranian armed forces are among the largest in the Middle East, with at least 580,000 active-duty personnel and about 200,000 trained reserve personnel divided among the traditional army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, according to an annual assessment last year by the International Institute for Strategic Studies.

The army and the Guards each have separate and active ground, air and naval forces, with the Guards responsible for Iran’s border security. The General Staff of the Armed Forces coordinates the branches and sets the overall strategy.

The Guards also operate the Quds Force, an elite unit in charge of arming, training and supporting the network of proxy militias throughout the Middle East known as the “axis of resistance.” These militias include Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, militia groups in Syria and Iraq and Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza.

Power by Proxy: How Iran Shapes the Mideast

A guide to the armed groups that let Iran extend its influence throughout the region.

The commander in chief of Iran’s armed forces is the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the last word on all major decisions.

While the proxy militias are not counted as part of Iran’s armed forces, analysts say they are considered an allied regional force — battle ready, heavily armed and ideologically loyal — and could come to Iran’s aid if it was attacked.

“The level of support and types of systems Iran has provided for nonstate actors is really unprecedented in terms of drones, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles,” said Fabian Hinz, an expert on Iran’s military at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Berlin. “They could be viewed as part of Iran’s military capability, especially Hezbollah, which has the closest strategic relationship with Iran.”

What kinds of weapons does Iran have?

For decades, Iran’s military strategy has been anchored in deterrence, emphasizing the development of precision and long-range missiles, drones and air defenses. It has built a large fleet of speedboats and some small submarines that are capable of disrupting shipping traffic and global energy supplies that pass through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran has one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles and drones in the Middle East, Mr. Ostovar said. That includes cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles, as well as ballistic missiles with ranges up to 2,000 kilometers, or more than 1,200 miles. These have the capacity and range to hit any target in the Middle East, including Israel.

In recent years, Tehran has assembled a large inventory of drones with ranges of around 1,200 to 1,550 miles and capable of flying low to evade radar, according to experts and Iranian commanders who have given public interviews to the state news media. Iran has made no secret of the buildup, displaying its trove of drones and missiles during military parades, and has ambitions to build a large export business in drones. Iran’s drones are being used by Russia in Ukraine and have surfaced in the conflict in Sudan.

The country’s bases and storage facilities are widely dispersed, buried deep underground and fortified with air defenses, making them difficult to destroy with airstrikes, experts say.

Where does Iran get its weapons?

International sanctions have cut Iran off from high-tech weaponry and military equipment manufactured abroad, like tanks and fighter jets.

During Iran’s eight-year war with Iraq in the 1980s, few countries were willing to sell weapons to Iran. When Ayatollah Khamenei became Iran’s supreme leader in 1989, a year after the war ended, he commissioned the Guards to develop a domestic weapons industry and poured resources into the effort, which was widely reported in the Iranian news media. He wanted to assure that Iran would never again have to rely on foreign powers for its defense needs.

Today, Iran manufactures a large quantity of missiles and drones domestically and has prioritized that defense production, experts said. Its attempts to make armored vehicles and large naval vessels have met with mixed results. It also imports small submarines from North Korea while expanding and modernizing its domestically produced fleet .

How do other countries see Iran’s military, and what are its weaknesses?

Iran’s military is viewed as one of the strongest in the region in terms of equipment, cohesion, experience and quality of personnel, but it lags far behind the power and sophistication of the armed forces of the United States, Israel and some European countries, experts said.

Iran’s greatest weakness is its air force. Much of the country’s aircraft date from the era of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, who led Iran from 1941 to 1979, and many have been disabled for lack of spare parts. The country also bought a small fleet from Russia in the 1990s, experts said.

Iran’s tanks and armored vehicles are old, and the country has only a few large naval vessels, experts said. Two intelligence gathering vessels, t he Saviz and Behshad, deployed on the Red Sea, have aided the Houthis in identifying Israeli-owned ships for attacks, American officials have said.

Will Israel’s attack disrupt Iran’s military?

The assassinations of the senior military officials are expected to have a short-term impact on Iran’s regional operations, having eliminated commanders with years of experience and relationships with the heads of the allied militias.

Nevertheless, the chain of command for the armed forces inside Iran remains intact, experts say.

An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a group in the Gaza Strip. It is Palestinian Islamic Jihad, not Islamic Palestinian Jihad.

How we handle corrections

Farnaz Fassihi is the United Nations bureau chief for The Times, leading coverage of the organization, and also covers Iran and the shadow war between Iran and Israel. She is based in New York. More about Farnaz Fassihi

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

How Iran’s attack on Israel was stopped

Massive drone and missile attack was defeated by Israeli military with orchestrated help of US, UK and Jordan

• Middle East crisis – live updates

Iran’s widely anticipated missile and drone attack was defeated with the orchestrated help of the US, UK and Jordan who, alongside the Israeli military, ensured that all but a handful of ballistic missiles were neutralised overnight.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said on Sunday that about 360 missiles and drones were fired from Iran and that “99% of the threats” had been intercepted in a successful defence mission that may have cost Israel £800m – but will have saved many lives and dented Iran’s military credibility.

Iran’s plan appears to have been to try to overwhelm Israel’s system of air defences with a complex attack of the type employed by Russia against Ukraine, but on a much vaster scale. It comprised relatively slow-moving drones, faster cruise missiles and high-speed ballistic missiles capable of travelling several times quicker than the speed of sound.

Though the attack was well telegraphed, with Iran’s foreign minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian, saying on Sunday it had given neighbouring countries 72 hours notice, its size was notable. Roughly three times a large-scale Russian assault in Ukraine and comprising over 100 ballistic missiles, the assault was a serious threat to any air defence system.

Iran’s chief of general staff, Gen Mohammad Bagheri, said on Sunday that the operation was considered a success and further attacks on its part were not necessary – but while Tehran will have learned about Israel’s air defences, the apparently low impact rate, particularly from the missiles, is likely to be a disappointment.

By comparison, the surprise drone and missile attack on two Saudi oil installations at Abqaiq and Khurais in September 2019, orchestrated by Iran, temporarily knocked out 5% of the world’s oil supply. Estimates vary, but two or three dozen drones and missiles were used at the time.

“Look at the size and scale of this latest attack – this was not a salutary move. It was designed to inflict real damage, but the fact that it didn’t is damaging to Iran’s credibility,” said Sidharth Kaushal of the Royal United Services Institute thinktank.

Overnight, international help was critical in eliminating the slower-moving drones: the US said it had knocked out about 70 drones and three missiles. The UK prime minister, Rishi Sunak , added that the RAF had intercepted an unspecified number. Other reports indicated Jordan, a longstanding US ally, had shot down dozens more drones over its airspace.

Working together to eliminate drones and cruise and ballistic missiles would have required careful planning, Kaushal added. “This is complex in every way. The defenders were a multinational force, having to operate in a deconflicted way, facing a mixture of weapons with different flight characteristics, from slower-moving drones to high-altitude ballistic missiles.”

Israel’s military said all 170 drones launched from Iran, likely to be from its Shahed family , were shot down before they reached Israeli airspace. In themselves, the drones are not much threat, able only to carry a modest bomb of up to 50kg, but their intention is to tie up defenders.

Videos of the craft, circulated on social media hours before being shot down, gave those responding plenty of time to react. The noisy engines suggested they were the slow-flying Shahed-136 , which would take six hours to fly from Iran to Israel, although some Israeli media reported Iran had launched the faster jet-engined Shahed 238, which travel three times more quickly and whose flight time matched the events overnight.

Though the participation of countries other than the US may have been a surprise overnight, there was plenty of time to plan. It is 10 days since the US first warned about a response from Tehran, and the US and UK had been moving military assets into the Middle East to prepare since then.

On Friday the US said it had shifted assets to the region, but declined to give further details, while the UK enhanced the RAF presence at the Akrotiri airbase in Cyprus. Planning was in place at the end of the week, with the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, saying on Sunday he had signed off Britain’s involvement at a Cobra emergency meeting two days earlier.

Israel said Iran also launched 30 cruise missiles towards its territory, with IDF jets intercepting 25 “outside the country’s borders”, according to military spokesperson Daniel Hagari. The missiles are most probably the newly designed Paveh-351, designed to be manoeuvrable in flight but still taking two hours from Iran.

The most serious threat came from high-speed ballistic missiles, capable of flying several times the speed of sound and making the journey from Iran to Israel (about 600 miles at the closest points) in less than 15 minutes. More than 120 were launched at Israel, Hagari said, and he acknowledged that “a few” crossed into Israel’s airspace, some striking at the Nevatim airbase.

Tackling these was largely the task of Israel’s air defence system, which relies on rockets to hit incoming missiles. Knocking out the ballistic missiles was primarily the task of the Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 systems, manufactured in an Israeli-US collaboration but never used until the start of the Israel-Hamas war, supported by David’s Sling , a medium-range interceptor.

Brig Gen Reem Aminoach, a former financial adviser to the IDF chief of staff, told Israel’s Ynet News that an Arrow missile typically costs $3.5m (£2.8m) a time, and David’s Sling interceptors $1m (£800,000). Adding up the cost of eliminating 100 ballistic missiles, plus the costs of the whole air defence campaign, is “an order of magnitude of 4 to 5 billion shekels (£850m to £1.1bn)”, he estimated.

However, the attack was also expensive for Iran, with ballistic missiles generally costing upwards of £80,000. The US estimates Tehran had about 3,000, the largest arsenal in the Middle East.

• Middle East and north Africa
• Rishi Sunak

More on this story

Gulf states’ response to Iran-Israel conflict may decide outcome of crisis

Muted Iranian reaction to attack provides short-term wins for Netanyahu

Middle East crisis: Blinken calls for calm as Iran official says no plan for immediate retaliation to reported Israeli missile strike – as it happened

Israel has mounted airstrikes on iran, us confirms, as tehran plays down attack.

What we know so far about Israel’s strike on Iran

Iran and Israel playing with fire as old rules of confrontation are torn up

What’s in Isfahan? The city home to Iranian nuclear facilities

US to impose new sanctions against Iran after its air attack on Israel

Netanyahu aims to trap west into war across Middle East, says Iranian diplomat

Middle East conflict risks sharp rise in oil prices, says IMF

Most viewed.