UK SAM Requirements

[Niaven]

First post on here guys, so please be gentle!!

I was looking through some old military photos recently when i came accross a picture showing banks and banks of Bloodhound missiles at an RAF base. It got me thinking that the UK has never really replaced these missiles since they were retired in the early 90's.

Virtually every other country in the world relies on a system of ground/airborne early warning, ground based interceptors and then a SAM envelope when all else fails. Being an island, do we in the UK rely on the sea as a natural barrier?

The ex-soviet block SA-2 Guideline to the S-400, the US MEADS, Patriot, THAAD, SM2/3 all are SAM systems with consdierable range and performances, what do we have - oooo some Rapier systems that if we are lucky might hit something up to a range of 6km.

Is there a system that i'm not thinking about, or do we not need one??

Your thoughts........

 

[swerve]

Most countries don't have SAMs for territorial defence. e.g. Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, almost every country in the Americas . . . . Some of those countries have SAMs, but for point defence of air bases, & defence of deployed forces (i.e. exactly the same as the UK), e.g. the USA, which uses its SAMs for defence of its forces deployed abroad, not the defence of the USA.

The Bloodhound was retired without replacement because the need for it was thought to have gone away. Land-based Sea Dart was cancelled for lack of a requirement. Several other countries have done the same. Spain got rid of its Nike Hercules missiles without replacement, & only later bought Patriot (second hand from German) for BMD defence along the Mediterranean coast.

 

[StevoJH]

With the small size of the UK and its high population density, it would be cheap to build a SAM bubble over the entire country (compared to other countries doing the same thing). However short of a long build up to a conventional world war three, it would be paying a LOT of money for very little gain.

 

[Feanor]

In short, there is no threat requiring such a response.

 

[Grim901]

In short, there is no threat requiring such a response.

Hit the nail on the head there really.

However I am confused as to why other nations buy longer range SAM systems to deploy in conflict theatres (thinking of France and Italy with SAMPT here) and the British don't. And why several nations are deploying theatre ABM capabilities, which have actually proven useful in at least one conflict involving the UK, and yet we don't also have a few systems for that purpose.

 

[STURM]

what do we have - oooo some Rapier systems that if we are lucky might hit something up to a range of 6km.

Stuff like Starstreak and Rapier are deployed in the field as point defence in case anything gets through and can also deal with UAVs. I'm not sure how effective IR MANPADS are against UAVs as I've been told that the IGLA's seeker head has difficulty in picking out UAVs due to the low IR signature.

The British army's Rapier missiles have been replaced by new ones, similiar to the Jernas and have an advertised maximum effective range of I think 20km. Not sure if it's just sales hype but the manufacturer claims that Jernas is the only missile in this category which can deal with cruise missiles. Anyone know if Rapier was deployed during the 2003 Iraq invasion?

Hit the nail on the head there really.

However I am confused as to why other nations buy longer range SAM systems to deploy in conflict theatres (thinking of France and Italy with SAMPT here) and the British don't. And why several nations are deploying theatre ABM capabilities, which have actually proven useful in at least one conflict involving the UK, and yet we don't also have a few systems for that purpose.

There is really no point for the U.K. at the moment to invest in a longer range SAM capability, especially given given shrinking budgets and other pressing priorities, as in the event of a major conflict it will be operating as part of a coalition and will be shielded by a U.S/coalition air defence umbrella. There is alo the question of geography and potential threats, with both France and Italy concerned about the possibility of a missile attack from North Africa in the 80's. If I'm not mistaken, after the U.S. raid Libya actually fired a Scud at Italy, which, no suprises here, missed. I'm uncertain if the U.K. has any plans to invest on its own in an ABM capability. At the moment I dont see the point as despite all the talk about the Iranians posing a threat, the Iranians are reportedly a very, very long way off from developing a ballistic missile with the range required to reach Europe. A country which will probably field a long range ballistic missile much sooner than the Iranians, is India.

. Spain got rid of its Nike Hercules missiles without replacement, .

I think the same goes for the Greeks. After the Nike was retired they were left with the only the Hawk.

 

[Feanor]

India already fields a long range ballistic missile. Not one capable of hitting Europe, but one capable of hitting a lot of other places.

 

[Grim901]

India already fields a long range ballistic missile. Not one capable of hitting Europe, but one capable of hitting a lot of other places.

And they're no threat to the UK either.

Strum you ignored my point about deploying systems into theatre, British forces are firmly in the range of Iranian missiles. Are we always just supposed to rely on the Americans? And then there is always our naval forces which operate right next to Iran a lot.

 

[swerve]

Irans ballistic missiles are only capable of hitting large fixed installations. Look at how the Iraqi missiles were used in 1990-91, & Iran & Iraq used their missiles in the 1980s. They're terror weapons, not effective against military units, & of limited effectiveness against rear area bases. The Iraqis scored one lucky hit on a US barracks, & the Iranians & Iraqis in the 1980s killed civilians - and rather few of them, considering the very large number of missiles fired.

It's arguable that hitting them as they're coming down, as Patriots did in 1990-91, makes them more, not less, dangerous. It turns a single inaccurate bullet into a shotgun round, which may do even more damage.

 

[STURM]

And they're no threat to the UK either.

Strum you ignored my point about deploying systems into theatre, British forces are firmly in the range of Iranian missiles. Are we always just supposed to rely on the Americans? And then there is always our naval forces which operate right next to Iran a lot.

I didn't ignore your point about an in theatre capability. With funding so tight at the moment, the U.K. like other countries has to spend on immmediate priorities.
The U.K. currently relies on the U.S. a lot, why not for theatre ABM defence?
The biggest threat to RN vessels in the Gulf should the balloon go up, are mines, swarm attacks by small boats and coastal anti-ship missiles.

 

[Thiel]

Here in Denmark we've also gotten rid of our HAWK batteries.

 

[riksavage]

I didn't ignore your point about an in theatre capability. With funding so tight at the moment, the U.K. like other countries has to spend on immmediate priorities.
The U.K. currently relies on the U.S. a lot, why not for theatre ABM defence?
The biggest threat to RN vessels in the Gulf should the balloon go up, are mines, swarm attacks by small boats and coastal anti-ship missiles.

The UK already has plans in place to network Starstreak with future land-based CAAM, this coupled with T45 PAAMS will provide littoral coverage for existing likely threats. The ballistic missile threat is simply not a priority when benchmarked against all the others facing the UK currently. The best option is for the EU to sign-up for a full-on joint ballistic missile shield. Any incoming missile will have to overfly Europe before it reaches the UK, so I suspect it will be detected and whacked prior to entering UK airspace.

 

[Feanor]

Are we talking about strategic BMD or long-ragen SAMs?

 

[TaranisAttack]

And they're no threat to the UK either.

Strum you ignored my point about deploying systems into theatre, British forces are firmly in the range of Iranian missiles. Are we always just supposed to rely on the Americans? And then there is always our naval forces which operate right next to Iran a lot.

Thats great, but who cares if we are in range, if they don't have the courage to launch. Iran start throwing missiles into Afghistan and they will be smashed to little pieces. You don't think the mullahs in Iran want to see an end to their power do you? Well a war with the West will bring their downfall for sure, and they know it.

The UK already has plans in place to network Starstreak with future land-based CAAM, this coupled with T45 PAAMS will provide littoral coverage for existing likely threats. The ballistic missile threat is simply not a priority when benchmarked against all the others facing the UK currently. The best option is for the EU to sign-up for a full-on joint ballistic missile shield. Any incoming missile will have to overfly Europe before it reaches the UK, so I suspect it will be detected and whacked prior to entering UK airspace.

Oh no, not a European programme. Those things are waaay to full of disagreement and expense! The very idea of another, European missile programme, will give me nightmares.