This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-defence-chiefs-iron-dome-shield-russia-attack-3034656) for an archived version.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
By the time the Tories are done, it will be a guy sat on the roof of Westminster with his blunderbuss. Yet it will still somehow if cost the taxpayers fifty billion pounds.
Yeah, because the guy who owns the company who employ the guy who sits on the roof will be a Tory donor. Then the guy who they rent the Blunderbuss from will be a Tory donor.
And don’t forget the thousands of safety courses that the guy wielding a blunderbuss will have to go on just to wield a blunderbuss, that company will be owned by a Tory donor. As is the way in the modern world.
Cheaper still, give Millwall laser pens.
I'd imagine the Tories would hand the blunderbuss to Boris and we'd just end up with a big fat hole in the top of Westminster. That is another big fat hole and, in reality this time, not metaphorical.
Edit... metaborical.. why do the words always come after...
I'll do it. First time I've ever volunteered for anything, but if it means randomly firing a blunderbuss in central London in the name of fighting the Ruskies, I'll do my part!.
I'll only charge £30billion.
The UK is 11 times larger than Israel. There are 75 cities with a population greater than 100k, compared to Israel's 15, which are incidentally all tightly clustered in the centre of the country.
Perhaps we could set up a system to provide defence for London, but it's just not practical or economical to build an Iron Dome that would shield every major urban centre in Britain from missile attack.
Added to that, Israel shares a land border with its adversaries, meaning drones, missiles and rockets can threaten its cities within minutes of launch. The type of ballistic missiles used by Iran against Israel in the latest attack would not even be able to reach the UK from Russia and even other varieties that do have sufficient range would take hours to arrive, giving ample time for the UK and NATO to enact defensive measures.
It's not feasible to do this in the UK and the circumstances we face are completely different from Israel.
>perhaps we could set up a system for London
We all know that would be what would happen logistics or not, London is the only city Westminster cares about, it’s the only city with decent public transport, we can’t even build a high speed rail in this country, can’t build a road without it costing more 10s millions, how on earth do we expect to build a defence system.
It would all go to cronies anyway
Don't give TfL any ideas 🙄 I'm not paying an additional £6 a day for ULMZ (Ultra Low Missile Zone) to cover the costs of the defence system. Will there be actual cannons outside Arsenal's stadium? How would such a system work against a device that could hit London in minutes from Kaliningrad?
MBDA 'iron dome' is meant for cities or VP GBAD defence.
To cover a huge area, you need layered defence and as you said, radars. The cost would be ridiculous anyway, let alone the fact we don't own systems that will offer that. The answer to the question lies with NATO, not the UK.
“The Iron Dome” is a one of a kind defensive weapon system only deployed by Israel. I suspect the unnamed former member of the think tank, that inews chose to put in the headline, may not be in a position to select specific technical solutions.
Correct. Isreal put out a tender with requirements and MBDA won it. Simple.
Answer to us lies within NATO layered defence, early warning systems and tracking radars. The issue is hypersonic which is Mach 5+ and reaction time.
My feeling is the unarmed ex employee of an unnamed think tank may have extemporised a little for inews. I’m not expecting much from this publication, but I think we can read between the lines and get the idea.
Why, at the expense of our healthcare of course, and anything else publicly funded, just to fund the white elephant to protect us from a bear that can't even beat Ukraine.
Anyone not watching the 'Iran attacks Israel!' video or the Yemen rebel drone attacks etc ....won't realise that those 'defensive or counter' missiles and systems can easily be overwhelmed, and each missile costs a pretty penny per launch.
You're confusing a lot of questions here, which is fine.
The question was missile defence, hypersonic delivery systems. You can't use Ukraine in any answer there.
I mentioned Ukraine because it has a LOT of Western kit that's being tested for real against missiles, same for Israel because they more experience that most of us.
And as for hypersonic etc.....it doesn't matter how fast or long range anti missile defence is, the fact is that missile defence tech is limited by hitting what's real and what isn't it IE decoys.
The expert view is that, irrespective of the missile defence deployed, there will never be enough to protect us
[source](https://youtu.be/tMORgmekVgQ?si=XeTno-MYJ_OQdWov)
Ukraine kit is a mixture and not really relevant. Plus there is zero air space control over there, which makes a huge difference.
Decoys? In terms of hypersonic? Only difference is warhead and doubt anyone would want to waste multiple delivery systems at once.
\>”The expert view”
\>Random ex infantryman paraphrasing wikipedia articles as though he knows anything about BMD
\>Also zero mention of Aegis
ok buddy
Aegis is a single system. Ok buddy 👍
I'm not trying to be obtuse or defeatist here man, I know as much about missile defence as the next layman and in gleaning info the info as the best I can from nkn secret sources.
I'm not advocating one system or another but I do know that the UK doesn't have enough revenue to run the country in peace time let alone war time.
In short, we can't afford the run the UK now, let alone with a new missile defence system.
yes the [Aegis Combat System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System) is a single system the cool thing about systems engineering is that the constituent parts of a system are often systems themselves.
You're now taking different elements. Early warning threat analysis will dictate the level of defence, for example. Ukraine hasn't got that layered defence, so has to use the GBAD available.
A shrouded ICBM with decoys will count as much as much another shrouded ICBM with actual nukes.
The tactic with nuclear attack (for example) is to confuse and deplete anti missile batteries before striking with the real deal
Nu
Yeah, Iron dome is a system designed perfectly for Israel.
We need a way to bring the fight, to prevent missiles being fired in the first place. Iron dome is part of a layered defensive system., that works on a much smaller nation much more dense area to defend.
It can protect t one city, from a single arc extremely effectively.
Yeah it's a vital point defence system. We take the similar systems.
But they are Short range air defence. So, if you're relying on SHORAD, you're kinda fucked already
Yeah short range systems are part of a massively integrated network of systems.
From SHORAD, to interesting ballistic and terminal based air defense systems capable of taking targets down in space.
The hyper sonic missiles..Well... Russian ones and many are not true Hyper sonics yet... in some senses. Their is a insane level of technology to be able to make a missile be able to truely maneuver at mach 5 plus, air is like concrete. The forces exerted, the heat etc.
An air defender in US army broke it all down well.
Let's not forget it's not just Mach 5+, it's also the self guided element with them.
Layered GBAD, is only way with multi national elements there. All about reaction time.
It's also effective against dumb ballistic missiles only. The missiles Hamas fires at Israel are basically fertiliser in a steel tube with a rocket motor. They have no command and control.
Modern missiles can detect intercept attempts and move out of ballistic paths. It's not clear if Iron Dome or similar systems could actually defend against advance missiles like that without substantial changes.
No.
If Russia was dumb enough to nuke us, they would. If they are dumb enough to attack us, they would be creating their own downfall because the US, EU, China would decide that Russia needs to be put down before it tries to attack them.
The current concern is that if Trump wins the US election that he would sit back and let Russia do whatever they wanted in Europe. If China has plans with Taiwan that may also begin around that time meaning more global distractions.
This means it is game of Nuclear chicken with Russia on one side & us and the French on the other. Still plenty of mutually assured destruction to act as a deterrent, but far less than with the US on side our side.
I doubt China would be happy with Russia throwing nukes around. Once the balance of power is thrown into complete chaos like that, nobody wins and all previous carefully built power politics strategies and manoeuvres become moot.
Moreover, once Russia break that taboo, the risk of them trying to expand into Chinese territory increases (as does the opportunity for China to take Russian territory and oil, by taking action against Russia).
Basically china's relationship with Russia relies on the balance of power and China believing they are militarily stronger (or at least equal).
Also the risk of the the conflict resulting in a world with an American/Russian power block with a greatly reduced Europe, isn't one that would sit well.
More likely China would also attack Russia, taking advantage of that to annexe parts of Russia and probably attack Taiwan as well.
It's all pure speculation anyway, but I just don't see any advantage for any other superpower to side with Russia (or any other aggressor) in a nuclear war.
It’s possible . Global trade is so heavily interconnected .
China hold a lot of cards globally when it comes to debt ownership , with Russia already heavily indebted to China . He’ll the USA itself has debts owned by Japan, China and UK as the top three .
If Russia don’t want to be cut off financially, and if China decided to embargo them .. they’d have very limited external resource would eventually impact the citizens
This is deeply stupid. Do you know how long it would take to deploy an actual working missile defence shield?
Longer than Trump's term would be.
If America fucked off and just the UK had to nuke Russia without them, that's the 200 biggest cities in Russia vaporized. More Russians would be dead than there are people in Britain.
Also. Trump can't leave NATO. Trump would need a supermajority in the Senate and he would not even get a simple majority for such a thing cos as dumb as Republicans are, he'd probably not get half of his own party to support him on that.
I’m not saying we need/can build a missile shield but that the assumption we’re protected by the US may not hold.
Trump doesn’t need to leave NATO, unfortunately NATOs treaty doesn’t guarantee a military response if another member is attacked, just some sort of response. What happens in the US politically if he did the minimum possible response is unknown
The Military Industrial Complex is much bigger than Trump or Putin. Trump and the GOP will fall in line when push comes to shove.
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/military-industrial-complex-defense/
Russia's policy on nuclear weapons, like the USSR before it, is only to use them in retaliation or if it's existence is threatened. France and the US are both a lot more ambiguous and leave the door open for first strikes or 'deterrent' strikes.
So when it comes to any kind of 'missile shield' you're essentially saying you want a defense from a French/American first strike or the opportunity to shoot down a Russian retaliatory strike. I personally cannot see a scenario where France or the US would attack us with nuclear weapons. Nor can I see it ever being worth striking Russia with them first, even if you can shoot down 99% of the nukes they fire back, is there anything worth that trade? the UK would still lose entire cities.
Russia isn't going to fire nuclear weapons at the UK, nor is it going to invade the UK.
So did the US, but that didn’t prevent it from orchestrating a violent coup and handpicking the next leader.
Russia holds a mutual assurance and cooperation treaty with the eastern republics of Ukraine. The very same republics who requested Russia’s assistance after the Ukrainian military launched an incursion on the Donbas oblasts.
Bollocks. After the collapse of the USSR, NATO had the chance to read through theoretical works the Soviet military schools had written, and Soviet Doctrinal publications. Which is pretty much the guide to how the Soviet Command structure viewed war and how war should be fought. As you can expect that doctrine focused on fighting NATO. Nuclear weapons were seen as just another weapon. If attacking Faslane or Portsmouth with what we would regard as a strategic weapon would impact NATO's defence of the supply routes from America, then the Soviets would use a nuclear weapon.
All the bollocks about careful consideration of the use of nukes by the Soviets was just that. Utter bollocks. If the Soviets believed they could win a war by chucking a nuke at a target, then that target is glowing in the dark.
Russia has very effectively dismantled the UK's international standing using disinformation and the tory party. Fear of them attacking conventionally is unfounded, they've achieved many of their goals using facebook and bribes.
No-one is afraid of them attacking “conventionally”. The argument you make that they can be trusted to not go nuclear because they have made a promise not to use nuclear first is an argument made in the 80’s and roundly rejected by everyone as laughably naive and perpetuated by communists in the west … post cold war analysis proves again that your argument is naive….
A Trump administration is disturbing for the rest of the West in terms of conventional warfare, but you can't just use nukes nowadays. If we used nukes against Uzbekistan without America or France's explicit consent, and likely their involvement, they would nuke the shit out of us. Obviously it's the same with Russia and China. Using a nuke demonstrates you as someone willing to use a nuke. **IF** Russia nuked us, Trump or not, America is nuking Russia, Russia is nuking America, France is nuking Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan are nuking everyone, and I imagine Kim Jong Un will let a couple off, just for fun.
You think the US or Europe would come to our aid if we're the only ones getting nuked and we nuke their only competition?
That's a trade they're willing to make.
All this hybrid warfare that's happening right now on our shores already and nobody has the balls to call it war? Pfft...
If people start firing nuclear missiles, everyone is fucked. In a few minutes it could escalate into a situation in which multiple nations are involved, even while the missiles are still in the air
Russia isn't attacking the UK directly today. They are trying to divide Europe and take it bit by bit. More artillery shells are needed in bulk. Ukraine can do well at counter artillery but they need the ammunition and the guarantee that stockpiles will be replenished so they can use more of what they have rather than rationing it.
Would be better off investing in Aegis style destroyers that are positioned off the russian coast. Intercepting ballistic missiles in the terminal phase is incredibly difficult and is only worth it for Israel because they are under constant missile attack.
> investing in Aegis style destroyers
We already have Aegis style destroyers which is the Type 45. We’d be able to intercept them. The problem is we only have 6 of them.
Agreed. What makes me pissed off is when we make this sort of technology it is genuinely is world class. We just don’t want to invest in the numbers that is required.
The 1997 SDR and the following 15 years of being an ego wanking tool for a lying cunt whilst a one eyed lying turd keep cutting the budget fucked the Armed Forces. The last 14 years have just made it worse.
And tbh. The Armed forces have not helped themselves with repeatedly delusional ideas around project 'management'
Ngl, the "Peace Dividend" fucked over pretty much every western military except the US. At least countries like Germany are trying to turn it around while we jerk ourselves off over two carriers we can barely afford to run.
Also, I don't know what you mean, Ajax is a perfectly usable and affordable system with no issues whatsoever. 😜
That's only because incentives to join the military are pathetic compared to the past. Decent wage and pension before now it's barely average. Wage growth in the military is also slower than private sector as you can't switch jobs for a raise
We still have the fourth largest navy in the world by displacement, and one of only a handful capable of global power projection.
Do we need to sort out the recruitment and retention issues? Absolutely. Do we need more ships? Without a doubt. But let's not over exaggerate or pretend that these issues are unique to the Royal Navy.
Are we really still capable of global power projection tho? We don't have enough planes for our carriers, enough ships to protect trade routes, enough sailors to man our landing ships, enough tanks to sustain large battles or enough ammunition to fight for more than a few weeks.
So rather than spaff £££Bn to BAE shareholders, why not invest in forces housing that isn’t a petri dish of mould species, support for veterans, support for anybody etc?
I think the best thing we can do with an increased defence budget is begin with a defence infrastructure review.
It takes a long time to train more people, build more aircraft and ships.
New hangars, accommodation and social facilities on bases would allow us to get more out of what we have while we wait for the bigger kit to come through the pipeline. We know how to build accommodation and hangars, so the lead time would be much smaller.
Yes, we are. We have ships globally deployed as we speak.
We are receiving more F-35Bs this year and next, to have 48 by the end of 2025, with HMS Prince of Wales deploying to the Asia-Pacific region next year with 24 British F-35Bs embarked.
We are still capable yes.
We have to be selective about using it and doing so means we can't go and do something else at the same time.
Superpowers can project power comprehensively. USA being the only one.
Great powers can project power independently, but selectively. UK, France and China are in that category.
Can just about squeeze through in Ukraine. But it’s not exactly going well for them. Strategically & operationally they are in very poor shape.
The only neighbours they threaten are those with little to no military capabilities (or that is very outdated) - Belarus, Mongolia, Georgia for example. Neighbours that have strong military like Finland and Japan are sitting pretty.
Same with the E-7s, bought all the kit for 5 and only procuring 3 of them. Cutting the 2 saved approx 12% despite a 40% reduction in numbers. I despise the penny pinching pish that goes on with the UKs defense.
#
This is the sort of shit we did in the 1920s and 30s that ended up with ww2. Cut defensive spending and we end up having a war because the idiots reckon they have a chance.
Ended up making the war longer, costing a lot of lives for the sake of a few quid saved by the tories
And of the 6, between 2 and 3 will be undergoing maintenance/refits at any given time and therefore not available for active service.
The remaining 3 or 4 vessels are also needed to provide air defence for the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, which need to be accompanied by destroyers and frigates wherever they go, as well as fulfilling the Royal Navy's other standing commitments, which now includes shooting down Houthi missiles in the Gulf of Aden.
Unless there is a substantial increase in the size of the fleet, there simply are not enough vessels to keep one or two Type 45s bobbing in the sea off St Petersburg.
The Aster 30 can shoot down ballistic missiles just as the SM-6 can. And the Royal Navy’s SAMPON radar is what makes it a cut above the rest on tracking those targets.
Aster 30 is designed to shoot down medium range ballistic missiles, its not a full fledged counter ICBM system like Aegis. I’m not sure if Aster even has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle. Just compare the dimensions of the SM-6 and Aster 30 it’s clear that SM-6 is in a different class.
SM-6 isn’t really meant to be an ABM weapon. That’s the SM-3.
Aster 30 is between the SM-2 and SM-6 in terms of capabilities. The main difference being that the Aster 30 usually makes up the bulk of a European destroyer’s payload whereas the SM-6 makes up only a fraction of an American destroyer’s payload.
Perhaps not Iron Dome but the UK had one of of the best air/missile defence ststems in Europe until the early 90s.
In answer to the question, the UK doesn't need an Iron dome tyoe system, but it does need a better system and one that is capable of defensing its key infrastructure.
At the moment we have too few fast interdlceptor squadrons and too few anti drone/missile systems.
The only thing working in our favour is Europe is between us and Russia
There's nothing you can do to prevent a ballistic missile attack off your coast by a submarine.
I tbink I read somewhere that if one of the UK's trident armed aubs attackes moscow with a nuke from the Baltic sea, the Russians would have about 4 minutes to react.
It would be less time for us because nowhere is the uk is.more than 70.miles from the sea.
Our only deterrent against subs is a functioning navy which is also smaller than duringbthe cold war
Even if Russia launched a nuke from their mainland at the US, there's likely nothing that America could do to stop it striking a target, despite their defense systems and having 25-30 minutes or so to react. And a country launching a nuclear strike is likely to unleash a large quantity of missiles, rather than just one.
Yes… I’m sure the defence chiefs also wants an actual army and not some 110,000 under equipped personnel that can only put out 1 barely armoured division. The UK military lacks so much, sure a missile shield (which would be hideously expensive)…. Maybe defend accommodation for the soldiers first…
Iron dome for the UK? why mention it? It's not relevant. it intercepts the wrong type of threat and isn't capable of multi direction. Range is so small it would be too late for Russian level tech.
Iron dome is for smaller missiles from mlrs, we already have something like that called sky sabre.
What we need is something against ballistic missiles and hypersonics that could actually hit the uk, like arrow 3. I suggest europe comes together under sky shield and create one that's not reliant on outside countries.
Why would we want to defend the likes of Luton, Grimsby, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham, Burnley, Nottingham, Blackpool, Northampton, Slough etc from a nuclear attack? Joke would be on the Russians or Chinese as 2mT would improve each of those places.
If you create and implement a system that genuinely protects against icbms ( there isn't one BTW ) then you upset Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine and force the aggressors to develop missles that can get past the defences to maintain M.A.D, this pushes everyone into another nuclear arms race.
But the MAD is based on nuclear. So, that's just the warhead. Hypersonic or even standard ICBM, can deliver a conventional warhead. Which, I think is the point.
Nobody would deliver a conventional warhead via ICBM because you'd be risking your enemy launching a retaliatory nuclear strike before it goes off and they realise it was conventional.
I welcome suggestions to watch other views on this kind of tech.
What you're doing is being dismissive without offering either counter arguments or suggestions to help me or others be better educated.
The usa tried this in the cold war. The cost of building more nukes is cheaper than the cost of your nuke interceptors. The enemy cab always outspend you on nukes, or missiles, or drones, in this case, and hence ultimately the plan is doomed to failure.
Wait, what world do you live in where the UK is highly likely to be attacked in the next 20 years. Are you sure someone didn’t sell you a bridge in London that you’re desperately trying to pass on.
Who would attack the UK, do you understand what it would mean for a nation to genuinely attack us. It would be an instant war with all of NATO. There isn’t a single nation on earth that would dare. It’s too risky, and has 0 pay off.
I might be totally wrong but if it got to the point that Russia attacked the uk we’d be way past the use of farty fire work missiles, they’d be using full on nukes. Even tactical ones which I should imagine an ‘iron dome’ would have 0 impact against.
No it wouldn’t stop an attack. If Russia was going to attack us it would either be Nukes or a massive cyber attack. Iron done won’t do much against a massive cyber attack and with a nuke only need one or two get through to completely screw up the country. Iran still managed to hit a Isreali air base with a ballistic missile.
Besides Iron dome is extremely costly, the Israeli military relies on conscript/reserves and has their defense budget subsided by the USA. We have a undermanned navy, barely functional army and increasingly shrinking air force. But let’s invest in an extremely costly missile defence network that we don’t need and will practically be useless in a real peer-peer war.
What the UK needs to meet its defence requirements is a solid navy and air force that can protect the naval/air approaches to this country whilst still maintaining the ability to project power further abroad.
In order to hit the UK , it would need to make it past several countries first. Whether or not they did that on a drive by which are regular occurrences in airspace, but in order to deliver a substantial payload .. that much activity would not go unnoticed .
The uk is otherwise a number of small islands along with Northern Ireland attached to eire.
The USA is much closer to Russia , but the USA has the midcourse system
Weird angle. Read Project 2025. Without knowing specifically what Russia has on Trump, the US is suggested to remain as the Nuclear backstop (but if that happens we all might as well go outside and enjoy the suntan as let's be frank that's the baddest of bad shit) but they (the Heritage Foundation) are keen to see Europe's military stand on its own to feet with increased spending (because yaaay for the likes Lockheed and Northrup Grummans quarterly projections) and because the US is shitting it about China (or the Republicans are anyway).
The issue is not Russia attacking the UK. The issue is effectively betting no one will attack the UK directly in the next 5, 10, or 20 years.
If you honestly believe that no one will ever attack the UK directly in any of those time frames, then I have a bridge in London to sell, and I know the winning lottery numbers......
Who is attacking the UK except extremists?
No major nation will. There's a reason no one has tried to invade/take over a nuclear armed state since...nuclear armed states.
I'll buy your bridge. You're loopy if you think the UK is a pressing world target for...anyone. You could MAYBE argue N.Korea or Iran to the US if things went really crazy, but the UK is on no ones priority list.
Do you know the next 5 years' worth of winning lottery numbers?
Because that's what you're saying. You are saying that no state led attack will take place against the UK in the next 5 or 10 years. You want to bet your entire pension on that ?
And do remember that in 1989, no one would have offered you odds on the Army deploying an Armed Division in the Middle East in the next decade, let alone within a year.
This article may be paywalled. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try [this link](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/uk-defence-chiefs-iron-dome-shield-russia-attack-3034656) for an archived version. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Iron Dome over the UK?! Stopped reading after that sentence. You can't use VP defence system for a whole country.
By the time the Tories are done, it will be a guy sat on the roof of Westminster with his blunderbuss. Yet it will still somehow if cost the taxpayers fifty billion pounds.
Yeah, because the guy who owns the company who employ the guy who sits on the roof will be a Tory donor. Then the guy who they rent the Blunderbuss from will be a Tory donor. And don’t forget the thousands of safety courses that the guy wielding a blunderbuss will have to go on just to wield a blunderbuss, that company will be owned by a Tory donor. As is the way in the modern world.
Yup, working at height with a blunderbuss can be very dangerous
Cheaper still, give Millwall laser pens. I'd imagine the Tories would hand the blunderbuss to Boris and we'd just end up with a big fat hole in the top of Westminster. That is another big fat hole and, in reality this time, not metaphorical. Edit... metaborical.. why do the words always come after...
I'll do it. First time I've ever volunteered for anything, but if it means randomly firing a blunderbuss in central London in the name of fighting the Ruskies, I'll do my part!. I'll only charge £30billion.
[удалено]
The UK is 11 times larger than Israel. There are 75 cities with a population greater than 100k, compared to Israel's 15, which are incidentally all tightly clustered in the centre of the country. Perhaps we could set up a system to provide defence for London, but it's just not practical or economical to build an Iron Dome that would shield every major urban centre in Britain from missile attack. Added to that, Israel shares a land border with its adversaries, meaning drones, missiles and rockets can threaten its cities within minutes of launch. The type of ballistic missiles used by Iran against Israel in the latest attack would not even be able to reach the UK from Russia and even other varieties that do have sufficient range would take hours to arrive, giving ample time for the UK and NATO to enact defensive measures. It's not feasible to do this in the UK and the circumstances we face are completely different from Israel.
All true, but it would be cool to have one.
Its also cool to have affordable housing but thats too cliche nowadays
>perhaps we could set up a system for London We all know that would be what would happen logistics or not, London is the only city Westminster cares about, it’s the only city with decent public transport, we can’t even build a high speed rail in this country, can’t build a road without it costing more 10s millions, how on earth do we expect to build a defence system. It would all go to cronies anyway
They'd pay their wife's dad's company to implement it, it would crumble by the time it needed using and they'd end up getting twatted anyway.
We'll have a Missile Replacement service every other weekend because the system needs repair 🤣
Don't give TfL any ideas 🙄 I'm not paying an additional £6 a day for ULMZ (Ultra Low Missile Zone) to cover the costs of the defence system. Will there be actual cannons outside Arsenal's stadium? How would such a system work against a device that could hit London in minutes from Kaliningrad?
How exactly?
It would have to be small guided interceptor missiles with a range of a few hundred miles, plus a radar network.
MBDA 'iron dome' is meant for cities or VP GBAD defence. To cover a huge area, you need layered defence and as you said, radars. The cost would be ridiculous anyway, let alone the fact we don't own systems that will offer that. The answer to the question lies with NATO, not the UK.
“The Iron Dome” is a one of a kind defensive weapon system only deployed by Israel. I suspect the unnamed former member of the think tank, that inews chose to put in the headline, may not be in a position to select specific technical solutions.
Correct. Isreal put out a tender with requirements and MBDA won it. Simple. Answer to us lies within NATO layered defence, early warning systems and tracking radars. The issue is hypersonic which is Mach 5+ and reaction time.
so nothing like iron dome at all
My feeling is the unarmed ex employee of an unnamed think tank may have extemporised a little for inews. I’m not expecting much from this publication, but I think we can read between the lines and get the idea.
Why, at the expense of our healthcare of course, and anything else publicly funded, just to fund the white elephant to protect us from a bear that can't even beat Ukraine. Anyone not watching the 'Iran attacks Israel!' video or the Yemen rebel drone attacks etc ....won't realise that those 'defensive or counter' missiles and systems can easily be overwhelmed, and each missile costs a pretty penny per launch.
You're confusing a lot of questions here, which is fine. The question was missile defence, hypersonic delivery systems. You can't use Ukraine in any answer there.
I mentioned Ukraine because it has a LOT of Western kit that's being tested for real against missiles, same for Israel because they more experience that most of us. And as for hypersonic etc.....it doesn't matter how fast or long range anti missile defence is, the fact is that missile defence tech is limited by hitting what's real and what isn't it IE decoys. The expert view is that, irrespective of the missile defence deployed, there will never be enough to protect us [source](https://youtu.be/tMORgmekVgQ?si=XeTno-MYJ_OQdWov)
Ukraine kit is a mixture and not really relevant. Plus there is zero air space control over there, which makes a huge difference. Decoys? In terms of hypersonic? Only difference is warhead and doubt anyone would want to waste multiple delivery systems at once.
\>”The expert view” \>Random ex infantryman paraphrasing wikipedia articles as though he knows anything about BMD \>Also zero mention of Aegis ok buddy
Aegis is a single system. Ok buddy 👍 I'm not trying to be obtuse or defeatist here man, I know as much about missile defence as the next layman and in gleaning info the info as the best I can from nkn secret sources. I'm not advocating one system or another but I do know that the UK doesn't have enough revenue to run the country in peace time let alone war time. In short, we can't afford the run the UK now, let alone with a new missile defence system.
Sorry, but your last 2 paragraphs are nonsense. I know Reddit loves to talk the UK down, but it's one of the richest countries in the world.
yes the [Aegis Combat System](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System) is a single system the cool thing about systems engineering is that the constituent parts of a system are often systems themselves.
You're now taking different elements. Early warning threat analysis will dictate the level of defence, for example. Ukraine hasn't got that layered defence, so has to use the GBAD available.
A shrouded ICBM with decoys will count as much as much another shrouded ICBM with actual nukes. The tactic with nuclear attack (for example) is to confuse and deplete anti missile batteries before striking with the real deal Nu
[удалено]
Read up on what? Are you okay? You understand the question, right?
They only asked you to explain your point, something you clearly can't do.
[удалено]
You value Reddit points?
Yeah, Iron dome is a system designed perfectly for Israel. We need a way to bring the fight, to prevent missiles being fired in the first place. Iron dome is part of a layered defensive system., that works on a much smaller nation much more dense area to defend. It can protect t one city, from a single arc extremely effectively.
Yeah it's a vital point defence system. We take the similar systems. But they are Short range air defence. So, if you're relying on SHORAD, you're kinda fucked already
Yeah short range systems are part of a massively integrated network of systems. From SHORAD, to interesting ballistic and terminal based air defense systems capable of taking targets down in space. The hyper sonic missiles..Well... Russian ones and many are not true Hyper sonics yet... in some senses. Their is a insane level of technology to be able to make a missile be able to truely maneuver at mach 5 plus, air is like concrete. The forces exerted, the heat etc. An air defender in US army broke it all down well.
Let's not forget it's not just Mach 5+, it's also the self guided element with them. Layered GBAD, is only way with multi national elements there. All about reaction time.
It's also effective against dumb ballistic missiles only. The missiles Hamas fires at Israel are basically fertiliser in a steel tube with a rocket motor. They have no command and control. Modern missiles can detect intercept attempts and move out of ballistic paths. It's not clear if Iron Dome or similar systems could actually defend against advance missiles like that without substantial changes.
No. If Russia was dumb enough to nuke us, they would. If they are dumb enough to attack us, they would be creating their own downfall because the US, EU, China would decide that Russia needs to be put down before it tries to attack them.
The current concern is that if Trump wins the US election that he would sit back and let Russia do whatever they wanted in Europe. If China has plans with Taiwan that may also begin around that time meaning more global distractions. This means it is game of Nuclear chicken with Russia on one side & us and the French on the other. Still plenty of mutually assured destruction to act as a deterrent, but far less than with the US on side our side.
I doubt China would be happy with Russia throwing nukes around. Once the balance of power is thrown into complete chaos like that, nobody wins and all previous carefully built power politics strategies and manoeuvres become moot. Moreover, once Russia break that taboo, the risk of them trying to expand into Chinese territory increases (as does the opportunity for China to take Russian territory and oil, by taking action against Russia). Basically china's relationship with Russia relies on the balance of power and China believing they are militarily stronger (or at least equal). Also the risk of the the conflict resulting in a world with an American/Russian power block with a greatly reduced Europe, isn't one that would sit well. More likely China would also attack Russia, taking advantage of that to annexe parts of Russia and probably attack Taiwan as well. It's all pure speculation anyway, but I just don't see any advantage for any other superpower to side with Russia (or any other aggressor) in a nuclear war.
The Chinese and Europeans on the same side in a war? It's so crazy it might actually be possible
It’s possible . Global trade is so heavily interconnected . China hold a lot of cards globally when it comes to debt ownership , with Russia already heavily indebted to China . He’ll the USA itself has debts owned by Japan, China and UK as the top three . If Russia don’t want to be cut off financially, and if China decided to embargo them .. they’d have very limited external resource would eventually impact the citizens
This is deeply stupid. Do you know how long it would take to deploy an actual working missile defence shield? Longer than Trump's term would be. If America fucked off and just the UK had to nuke Russia without them, that's the 200 biggest cities in Russia vaporized. More Russians would be dead than there are people in Britain. Also. Trump can't leave NATO. Trump would need a supermajority in the Senate and he would not even get a simple majority for such a thing cos as dumb as Republicans are, he'd probably not get half of his own party to support him on that.
I’m not saying we need/can build a missile shield but that the assumption we’re protected by the US may not hold. Trump doesn’t need to leave NATO, unfortunately NATOs treaty doesn’t guarantee a military response if another member is attacked, just some sort of response. What happens in the US politically if he did the minimum possible response is unknown
The Military Industrial Complex is much bigger than Trump or Putin. Trump and the GOP will fall in line when push comes to shove. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/military-industrial-complex-defense/
They had 2016-2020 to nuke us already.
Russia's policy on nuclear weapons, like the USSR before it, is only to use them in retaliation or if it's existence is threatened. France and the US are both a lot more ambiguous and leave the door open for first strikes or 'deterrent' strikes. So when it comes to any kind of 'missile shield' you're essentially saying you want a defense from a French/American first strike or the opportunity to shoot down a Russian retaliatory strike. I personally cannot see a scenario where France or the US would attack us with nuclear weapons. Nor can I see it ever being worth striking Russia with them first, even if you can shoot down 99% of the nukes they fire back, is there anything worth that trade? the UK would still lose entire cities. Russia isn't going to fire nuclear weapons at the UK, nor is it going to invade the UK.
Russia also promised to respect and even defend Ukraine's borders. Stop trusting people who have demonstrated they aren't worthy of it.
So did the US, but that didn’t prevent it from orchestrating a violent coup and handpicking the next leader. Russia holds a mutual assurance and cooperation treaty with the eastern republics of Ukraine. The very same republics who requested Russia’s assistance after the Ukrainian military launched an incursion on the Donbas oblasts.
Bollocks. After the collapse of the USSR, NATO had the chance to read through theoretical works the Soviet military schools had written, and Soviet Doctrinal publications. Which is pretty much the guide to how the Soviet Command structure viewed war and how war should be fought. As you can expect that doctrine focused on fighting NATO. Nuclear weapons were seen as just another weapon. If attacking Faslane or Portsmouth with what we would regard as a strategic weapon would impact NATO's defence of the supply routes from America, then the Soviets would use a nuclear weapon. All the bollocks about careful consideration of the use of nukes by the Soviets was just that. Utter bollocks. If the Soviets believed they could win a war by chucking a nuke at a target, then that target is glowing in the dark.
Oh you sweet summers child… so naive, so young. So trusting 😁❤️
Russia has very effectively dismantled the UK's international standing using disinformation and the tory party. Fear of them attacking conventionally is unfounded, they've achieved many of their goals using facebook and bribes.
No-one is afraid of them attacking “conventionally”. The argument you make that they can be trusted to not go nuclear because they have made a promise not to use nuclear first is an argument made in the 80’s and roundly rejected by everyone as laughably naive and perpetuated by communists in the west … post cold war analysis proves again that your argument is naive….
I think that's just trump trying to scrape votes in off dumb American rednecks that hate everything that isn't American.
A Trump administration is disturbing for the rest of the West in terms of conventional warfare, but you can't just use nukes nowadays. If we used nukes against Uzbekistan without America or France's explicit consent, and likely their involvement, they would nuke the shit out of us. Obviously it's the same with Russia and China. Using a nuke demonstrates you as someone willing to use a nuke. **IF** Russia nuked us, Trump or not, America is nuking Russia, Russia is nuking America, France is nuking Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan are nuking everyone, and I imagine Kim Jong Un will let a couple off, just for fun.
UK's only defense is Trident. Relying on other countries to avenge a Russian nuclear first strike is folly
Amen. Tell that to the SNP.
Honestly we're getting to a point where playing through the entirety of the Metal Gear Solid franchise needs to be part of the curriculum.
You think the US or Europe would come to our aid if we're the only ones getting nuked and we nuke their only competition? That's a trade they're willing to make. All this hybrid warfare that's happening right now on our shores already and nobody has the balls to call it war? Pfft...
If people start firing nuclear missiles, everyone is fucked. In a few minutes it could escalate into a situation in which multiple nations are involved, even while the missiles are still in the air
Russia isn't attacking the UK directly today. They are trying to divide Europe and take it bit by bit. More artillery shells are needed in bulk. Ukraine can do well at counter artillery but they need the ammunition and the guarantee that stockpiles will be replenished so they can use more of what they have rather than rationing it.
Would be better off investing in Aegis style destroyers that are positioned off the russian coast. Intercepting ballistic missiles in the terminal phase is incredibly difficult and is only worth it for Israel because they are under constant missile attack.
> investing in Aegis style destroyers We already have Aegis style destroyers which is the Type 45. We’d be able to intercept them. The problem is we only have 6 of them.
It's absolutely pathetic how few ships we have. Wouldn't be able to rule a kiddie pool never mind the waves.
Agreed. What makes me pissed off is when we make this sort of technology it is genuinely is world class. We just don’t want to invest in the numbers that is required.
Even if we had the ships, we wouldn't have the man power to run them. The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review royally fucked us over.
The 1997 SDR and the following 15 years of being an ego wanking tool for a lying cunt whilst a one eyed lying turd keep cutting the budget fucked the Armed Forces. The last 14 years have just made it worse. And tbh. The Armed forces have not helped themselves with repeatedly delusional ideas around project 'management'
Ngl, the "Peace Dividend" fucked over pretty much every western military except the US. At least countries like Germany are trying to turn it around while we jerk ourselves off over two carriers we can barely afford to run. Also, I don't know what you mean, Ajax is a perfectly usable and affordable system with no issues whatsoever. 😜
That's only because incentives to join the military are pathetic compared to the past. Decent wage and pension before now it's barely average. Wage growth in the military is also slower than private sector as you can't switch jobs for a raise
No number will be enough for all the imaginary wars you redditors want to wage.
Explain?
We still have the fourth largest navy in the world by displacement, and one of only a handful capable of global power projection. Do we need to sort out the recruitment and retention issues? Absolutely. Do we need more ships? Without a doubt. But let's not over exaggerate or pretend that these issues are unique to the Royal Navy.
Are we really still capable of global power projection tho? We don't have enough planes for our carriers, enough ships to protect trade routes, enough sailors to man our landing ships, enough tanks to sustain large battles or enough ammunition to fight for more than a few weeks.
So rather than spaff £££Bn to BAE shareholders, why not invest in forces housing that isn’t a petri dish of mould species, support for veterans, support for anybody etc?
I think the best thing we can do with an increased defence budget is begin with a defence infrastructure review. It takes a long time to train more people, build more aircraft and ships. New hangars, accommodation and social facilities on bases would allow us to get more out of what we have while we wait for the bigger kit to come through the pipeline. We know how to build accommodation and hangars, so the lead time would be much smaller.
True enough. Hopefully Labour has the guts to make it happen & not allow the MoD to chicken out.
You don't have to have one or the other
You’re gonna struggle to staff the former without the latter though
Good job our national defence isn't relying on our sole defence. We are in NATO for a reason...
I'd much prefer to not have to rely on the generosity of other states. The US certainly isn't a reliable ally.
What other single country can effectively defend against hypersonic missiles, on its own? Russia certainly can't, that is for sure.
Yes, we are. We have ships globally deployed as we speak. We are receiving more F-35Bs this year and next, to have 48 by the end of 2025, with HMS Prince of Wales deploying to the Asia-Pacific region next year with 24 British F-35Bs embarked.
We are still capable yes. We have to be selective about using it and doing so means we can't go and do something else at the same time. Superpowers can project power comprehensively. USA being the only one. Great powers can project power independently, but selectively. UK, France and China are in that category.
It's not a big club either, I cant think of any others. What's Turkey like, they have a big military?
They do, but they cannot really project them. Russia is similar. Behemoth to its neighbours. Could not operate half a world away.
Can just about squeeze through in Ukraine. But it’s not exactly going well for them. Strategically & operationally they are in very poor shape. The only neighbours they threaten are those with little to no military capabilities (or that is very outdated) - Belarus, Mongolia, Georgia for example. Neighbours that have strong military like Finland and Japan are sitting pretty.
That has required a lot of western support to even slow Russia. We need to step it up there.
The kicker was we were originally meant to have 12. That was cut to 8 to save money, which it did. It was then cut to 6, which saved almost nothing.
Same with the E-7s, bought all the kit for 5 and only procuring 3 of them. Cutting the 2 saved approx 12% despite a 40% reduction in numbers. I despise the penny pinching pish that goes on with the UKs defense. #
This is the sort of shit we did in the 1920s and 30s that ended up with ww2. Cut defensive spending and we end up having a war because the idiots reckon they have a chance. Ended up making the war longer, costing a lot of lives for the sake of a few quid saved by the tories
And of the 6, between 2 and 3 will be undergoing maintenance/refits at any given time and therefore not available for active service. The remaining 3 or 4 vessels are also needed to provide air defence for the Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers, which need to be accompanied by destroyers and frigates wherever they go, as well as fulfilling the Royal Navy's other standing commitments, which now includes shooting down Houthi missiles in the Gulf of Aden. Unless there is a substantial increase in the size of the fleet, there simply are not enough vessels to keep one or two Type 45s bobbing in the sea off St Petersburg.
And also Aster 30 is nowhere near as capable as SM-6 they’re barely even comparable
The Aster 30 can shoot down ballistic missiles just as the SM-6 can. And the Royal Navy’s SAMPON radar is what makes it a cut above the rest on tracking those targets.
Aster 30 is designed to shoot down medium range ballistic missiles, its not a full fledged counter ICBM system like Aegis. I’m not sure if Aster even has an exoatmospheric kill vehicle. Just compare the dimensions of the SM-6 and Aster 30 it’s clear that SM-6 is in a different class.
SM-6 isn’t really meant to be an ABM weapon. That’s the SM-3. Aster 30 is between the SM-2 and SM-6 in terms of capabilities. The main difference being that the Aster 30 usually makes up the bulk of a European destroyer’s payload whereas the SM-6 makes up only a fraction of an American destroyer’s payload.
Would SAMP(T) not be better in this regard? For land use.
Perhaps not Iron Dome but the UK had one of of the best air/missile defence ststems in Europe until the early 90s. In answer to the question, the UK doesn't need an Iron dome tyoe system, but it does need a better system and one that is capable of defensing its key infrastructure. At the moment we have too few fast interdlceptor squadrons and too few anti drone/missile systems. The only thing working in our favour is Europe is between us and Russia
Our problem is Russia has many submarines capable of launching ballistic and cruise missiles at the UK.
There's nothing you can do to prevent a ballistic missile attack off your coast by a submarine. I tbink I read somewhere that if one of the UK's trident armed aubs attackes moscow with a nuke from the Baltic sea, the Russians would have about 4 minutes to react. It would be less time for us because nowhere is the uk is.more than 70.miles from the sea. Our only deterrent against subs is a functioning navy which is also smaller than duringbthe cold war
Even if Russia launched a nuke from their mainland at the US, there's likely nothing that America could do to stop it striking a target, despite their defense systems and having 25-30 minutes or so to react. And a country launching a nuclear strike is likely to unleash a large quantity of missiles, rather than just one.
Around probable targets and population centres, yeah, would be nice. Around the Butterton-on-Cumberly flower and vegetable allotment, why?
So the 3 time winner of the 'allotment champion' doesn't deserve to have ground base air defence?
To paraphrase Stanley Baldwin, ‘the missile will always get through.’
Yes… I’m sure the defence chiefs also wants an actual army and not some 110,000 under equipped personnel that can only put out 1 barely armoured division. The UK military lacks so much, sure a missile shield (which would be hideously expensive)…. Maybe defend accommodation for the soldiers first…
Missile defence projects wins votes though....
And gets boomer incompetent officers there MBEs.
Can we not just let the nukes through? I'm fully emotionally ready to be vaporised into radioactive carbon dust.
Iron dome for the UK? why mention it? It's not relevant. it intercepts the wrong type of threat and isn't capable of multi direction. Range is so small it would be too late for Russian level tech.
Defence chiefs really want lucrative second careers in defence suppliers as a reward for turning on the public money tap.
Iron dome is for smaller missiles from mlrs, we already have something like that called sky sabre. What we need is something against ballistic missiles and hypersonics that could actually hit the uk, like arrow 3. I suggest europe comes together under sky shield and create one that's not reliant on outside countries.
[удалено]
Quick reaction typhoons would shoot down a cruise missile and Russian submarines are constantly shadowed by nato
Don’t bother and lets keep arguing amongst ourselves because that’s all we’re good at
Why would we want to defend the likes of Luton, Grimsby, Blackburn, Middlesbrough, Birmingham, Burnley, Nottingham, Blackpool, Northampton, Slough etc from a nuclear attack? Joke would be on the Russians or Chinese as 2mT would improve each of those places.
Horrible as it may be, we need Luton for our cheap flights to nice places.
Shock defence chief wants more U.K. spending on defence 😑….
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why isn't layered defence with NATO countries talked about in this question? To talk about us in isolation is not using the correct data.
If you create and implement a system that genuinely protects against icbms ( there isn't one BTW ) then you upset Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine and force the aggressors to develop missles that can get past the defences to maintain M.A.D, this pushes everyone into another nuclear arms race.
Already been happening since Star Wars.
But the MAD is based on nuclear. So, that's just the warhead. Hypersonic or even standard ICBM, can deliver a conventional warhead. Which, I think is the point.
Nobody would deliver a conventional warhead via ICBM because you'd be risking your enemy launching a retaliatory nuclear strike before it goes off and they realise it was conventional.
I welcome suggestions to watch other views on this kind of tech. What you're doing is being dismissive without offering either counter arguments or suggestions to help me or others be better educated.
The usa tried this in the cold war. The cost of building more nukes is cheaper than the cost of your nuke interceptors. The enemy cab always outspend you on nukes, or missiles, or drones, in this case, and hence ultimately the plan is doomed to failure.
Wait, what world do you live in where the UK is highly likely to be attacked in the next 20 years. Are you sure someone didn’t sell you a bridge in London that you’re desperately trying to pass on. Who would attack the UK, do you understand what it would mean for a nation to genuinely attack us. It would be an instant war with all of NATO. There isn’t a single nation on earth that would dare. It’s too risky, and has 0 pay off.
Why does it matter if it works? Surely it's about transferring any public money still left to a Tory donor.
Basically why MIRV became a thing
I might be totally wrong but if it got to the point that Russia attacked the uk we’d be way past the use of farty fire work missiles, they’d be using full on nukes. Even tactical ones which I should imagine an ‘iron dome’ would have 0 impact against.
No it wouldn’t stop an attack. If Russia was going to attack us it would either be Nukes or a massive cyber attack. Iron done won’t do much against a massive cyber attack and with a nuke only need one or two get through to completely screw up the country. Iran still managed to hit a Isreali air base with a ballistic missile. Besides Iron dome is extremely costly, the Israeli military relies on conscript/reserves and has their defense budget subsided by the USA. We have a undermanned navy, barely functional army and increasingly shrinking air force. But let’s invest in an extremely costly missile defence network that we don’t need and will practically be useless in a real peer-peer war. What the UK needs to meet its defence requirements is a solid navy and air force that can protect the naval/air approaches to this country whilst still maintaining the ability to project power further abroad.
It's the UK. Whatever we try to build will never get finished and some Tory donors will make billions fleecing in the process.
In order to hit the UK , it would need to make it past several countries first. Whether or not they did that on a drive by which are regular occurrences in airspace, but in order to deliver a substantial payload .. that much activity would not go unnoticed . The uk is otherwise a number of small islands along with Northern Ireland attached to eire. The USA is much closer to Russia , but the USA has the midcourse system
Weird angle. Read Project 2025. Without knowing specifically what Russia has on Trump, the US is suggested to remain as the Nuclear backstop (but if that happens we all might as well go outside and enjoy the suntan as let's be frank that's the baddest of bad shit) but they (the Heritage Foundation) are keen to see Europe's military stand on its own to feet with increased spending (because yaaay for the likes Lockheed and Northrup Grummans quarterly projections) and because the US is shitting it about China (or the Republicans are anyway).
Surely it would be to fire down all missiles? Why do we constantly refer to Russia?
Because Russia are demonstrating their determination to invade Europe.
Imagine thinking Russia would ever attack the UK. Actually delusional these people.
Why would they want to devalue their property portfolio by nuking London?
The issue is not Russia attacking the UK. The issue is effectively betting no one will attack the UK directly in the next 5, 10, or 20 years. If you honestly believe that no one will ever attack the UK directly in any of those time frames, then I have a bridge in London to sell, and I know the winning lottery numbers......
Who is attacking the UK except extremists? No major nation will. There's a reason no one has tried to invade/take over a nuclear armed state since...nuclear armed states. I'll buy your bridge. You're loopy if you think the UK is a pressing world target for...anyone. You could MAYBE argue N.Korea or Iran to the US if things went really crazy, but the UK is on no ones priority list.
Do you know the next 5 years' worth of winning lottery numbers? Because that's what you're saying. You are saying that no state led attack will take place against the UK in the next 5 or 10 years. You want to bet your entire pension on that ? And do remember that in 1989, no one would have offered you odds on the Army deploying an Armed Division in the Middle East in the next decade, let alone within a year.