Subscribe
Notify of
guest

223 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Rob Cameron

Leaving aside the threat to western domacracies from the Chinese and Russians, the BM weapons (if not the technology) cascading down from States like Iran to non-State actors (i.e. terrorists) surely means the ability to field a fully functioning BMD is not in question? How can the RN not be given the funds to develop and purchase the capability?

AlexS

Yes the technology is getting widespread. It is a genie out of the bottle and there is no question will have to be dealt with.
NATO Formidable Shield exercises have been since 2019 giving emphasis to it.
It is bi-annual, next one will be in 2025.

nige

Amen to that Rob

AlexS

Good post with a good introduction. I think it only missed a reference to the German lead land based ABM for central Europe.

The problem i see with RN is that only 6 T45 have this capability – i am not convinced that T83 will be operational before late 2030 -2040.if things continue to move slow. Italian Navy will extend the Aster BN1 capability to even their fake OPV’s the PPA, so they will have 2 cruisers aka DDX, 2 Horizon updated, 10 updated FREMM plus 2 FREMM EVO and 6 PPA. Not all the ships will have same capability but it is significant.

It is truth that Italy is nearer the action, so their urgency is bigger but more ships gives more flexibility and cover area.

UK also needs to consider not only the UK territory distance that implies bigger BM missiles but also defence of Cyprus – i think the reason HMS Duncan has been there is to protect Cyprus from some Heezbollah-Iran action.

Another point is the land defence ABM in UK due to distances involved – absent a sbmarine launch or a disguised merchant means big missiles in Arrow III or SM-3
Should be noted the above German lead ABM for central Europe will have Arrow III.

Grant

If there are to be a follow on to the T31 build (or a t32) it would be beneficial if these were AAW focused even if they won’t be quite as high end as the T45 or T83s (which if they are going to be cruiser sized carrier focused escorts will be few in number)

Bazza

If we assume that once capability insertions are done, that the standard Type 31 frigate will actually have 32 mk41 VLS, then I think they are already most of the way there.

Within those 32 cells you can fit a pretty large AAW capability. You could have something like 32 CAMM (quad-packed), 32 CAMM-ER (quad-packed), 16 CAMM-MR (dual-packed) and still have 8 cells left.

I do actually like your idea going a bit further though. If you replace the forward 40mm with 16 mk41 cells (which is doable according to Babcock) then you could easily have 16 cells dedicated to BMD.

You would of course need to develop or buy a better radar to make use of these, but that could be spun as a de-risking exercise for the Type 83 radar.

Grant

Exactly, that Samson radar or its replacement will need investment and it would be better if, as you say some development has been done (at least it keeps the capability and skills needed intact as well until the late 2030s or whenever the T45s get replaced)

Supportive Bloke

Why do you think SAMPSON is the long range radar doing the volume search?

It is likely done by the Thales 1850 which is the very large upwards looking volume air search radar.

Once the 1850 identifies it, it might use SAMPSON to do a more precise track.

Don’t be mislead by statement that PAAMS/Sea Viper is doing the search and tracking as that is the name of the overall system including the CMS which uses both radars.

Also, the missile will be set up for the shot by the ship but will need its own guidance for the required accuracy of a collision interception as a hitile.

A Robinson

Not correct. Sampson is fully capable of doing long range tracking but needs support when enagagements start becoming complex. If you look at the Type 45 you will see that the LRR has a significant blind arc forward where Sampson is the only radar that can cover it. Looking at your later comments Sampson can see higher than the LRR in the vertical plane.

As for ‘networking’ Link 16 has messages specifically for BMD tracking etc. The uSN uses them, not sure about the RN.

Duker

Due to the angle of inclination for 1850 you will find that its not looking along the horizon/ forward structure in that direction but upwards.
The reason is curvature of the earth negates the blindspot you are talking about . The Sampson is searching along the horizon segment and thats 360 deg

Supportive Bloke

Eh?

A Robinson is correct in stating that 1850’s view is interrupted by the SAMPSON radar mast but not that badly.

Look at the photo in the article it is clear from that.

Duker

The 1850 is inclined upwards for a reason ( although electronically steered in altitude) the 360 deg horizon area is the Sampsons job- which is why its higher to begin with

NL radar summary says Sampson is the primary and S1850M L band is a secondary anyway

Supportive Bloke

Yes, so the Thales does the donkey work of the air volume search but it is synthetically merged with SAMPSON to form a full air picture.

The gap, you describe, is quite small, essentially the SAMPSON radar mast as the Thales unit is so far back and angled upwards.

Likewise I’ve no idea about how the specifics of the asset->asset comms are achieved but we know from various press releases that Typhoon dropped weapons have been guided given target data from T23 and visa versa with a Harpoon firing (I think?) but it is most likely to be Link16.

Duker

Yes. Its a full air-sea Gods eye view from above to create a synthetic image on a flat screen. The information from both radars – when scanning- is combined along with any EW

AlexS

You need Aster 30 class missiles for BMD.

Supportive Bloke

That then isn’t a budget frigate.

Running costs multiply with complexity.

24 or 32 cells of Mk41 VLS is, as you say, a very decent load out of real world striking power.

Add 8 NSM in canisters and that is a full fat frigate.

I’d rather we had more T31/2 with the VLS and maybe an active sonar rather than gold plate the 5 we have on order.

AAW conversations get very confused between skimmers and anircrsft: Artisan is in an ASW frigate so you might think it is rather good at picking up periscopes? It is also very high up so will be decent at picking up skimmers at range.

If you wanted to add volume search you need a big array pointing upwards not son of SAMPSON!

QEC also has a really large volume search as does T45. The issues is more about network g and sharing those tracks/alerts/engagements.

Sean

The German lead European Sky Shield programme will provide Europe (inc U.K.) with ABM for land. This article is about ABM for ships, which is of particular importance for navies with CSGs.

AlexS

Thanks, i missed UK is part of ESSI.

Duker

Its all a non binding talk fest

OkamsRazor

Before we go all end of the world panic on this, a proper risk analysis would suggest that a sea based BMD platform is an expensive way to counter this threat. Bearing in mind that Iron Dome appears to have a roughly 90%+ success rate, which will presumably improve with data garnered from recent engagements.
So whilst current planned T45 BMD upgrades appear logical and a future upgrade of this capability with the French and Italians, is also logical. There doesn’t appear to be a case for a hurried purchase of any new systems for the UK and NATO should take on the responsibility for this one as our European partners have more proximate threats.

AlexS

Iron Dome is useable to up to 100km range rockets which have a more horizontal trajectory. It is only a 90kg missile too light to destroy a SCUD reliably.

Duker

ID is for between 4 and 70 km for the shorter path rockets

Supportive Bloke

You can thank the EU and Micron for the posturing that means NATO isn’t dealing with the theatre level threat.

The idea of the Germans leading this is quite amusing if you look at the history of European level issues.

Sean

The French are unhappy about the zero amount of French equipment to be bought for the ESSI, with the current plan being:

• Short range: Skyranger 30
• Medium range: primarily IRIS-T SLM
• Long range: MIM-104 Patriot
• Exoatmospheric: Arrow 3

However France isn’t even one of the 22 members of ESSI, and everyone in Europe recognises France’s tendency for hissy fits and is ignoring them. Germany has already agreed a $4bn contract to buy the Arrow 3 component.

Supportive Bloke

And the Germans are notorious for promising to spend big on defence projects and not following through!

I agree the French will just want tech lead and primacy to keep their research and manufacturing rolling over. Who can blame them? I would if I was them.

In this instance because they want a defined solution ASAP at a defined cost – buying MOTS and COTS is the way forward.

Duker

France and Italy arent a part of ESSI, so they dont have a vote, but still complain that Thales ‘french adjacent’ systems isnt selected, such as SAMP-T/NG (below with Aster missiles)
Maybe they have a point

221123-mamba_rdax_775x440s1
Quentin D63

Why the UK doesn’t have some of these? Shared pool of missiles with the RN. Nothing wasted. Even if for the interim? Too sensible?

Supportive Bloke

Maybe the funding nations want to buy a proven system and not provide endless funding for French induced arguments?

Duker

Its a proven system, operational since 2011 Its getting upgrades called NG

The French Army calls it Mamba, has 7 batteries ( 6 launch vehicles with 8 missiles each) while Italian Army has 3

DaveyB

No not really. SAMP-T/NG using Aster 30 Block 1NT is only equivalent to Patriot PAC-3.

The future German air defence system has a glaring capability gap. Which is the lack of a missile to intercept threats between the exoatmospheric Arrow 3 and Patriot (max height of around 80,000ft). This gap is filled by using SM6, THAAD and Arrow 2. Which are designed to counter hypersonic glide vehicles and hypersonic cruise missiles, plus intercepting ballistic missiles and MIRVs at a much higher altitude.

The Aquila missile program is being designed to compete with SM6, THAAD and Arrow-2 to counter the same threats. Though it’s going to be a minimum of 10 years behind these other missiles before it is FOC.

Duker

Equivalent and said to be half the price.
Whats not to like when beggars cant be chosers and UK has zilch currently
Thaad radar and interceptors are even more fiendishly expensive, thats just for a single battery of 6 launcher trucks and AN-TPY radar

DaveyB

The THAAD radar is an absolute monster. It is an X-band AESA radar that has a detection range of around 2000km. It requires a huge diesel genset to power it. You do not want to be standing in front of it when its transmitting!

However both it and the Patriot search radar are fixed. they can only see a 120 degree wide sector in front of them. The SAMP-T/NG uses either Leonardo’s Kronos or the Thales Ground Fire AESA radars, which are mechanically rotated to give a 360 degree view. Though neither are in the same power or detection league as the THAAD radar. So in one respect better than what Patriot provides.

I heartily agree that we should have at least the Block 1NT as a land based higher altitude interceptor. Used to protect key areas in the UK and overseas. But also to back up Landceptor (using either CAMM, CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR) as the {Polish are doing with their Patriot batteries. Thereby giving a theatre level protection.

Quentin D63

No land Aster and no even no CAMM, CAMM ER/MR listed here either? Maybe with the Skyranger 30 there’s room for the HVM and LMM? The above list might just be pertaining to Germany? I hope the UK is not losing out here.

Last edited 1 month ago by Quentin D63
Sean

That’s the tiered defence currently planned, the important thing is to get something working in place asap and not worrying about getting snouts in the trough. It’s of no benefit to the U.K. to win orders for parts of some future system if it’s reduced to a cinder before these can be fully developed and integrated.

Duker

SAMP/T or Mamba has been in operational service since 2011.
Its Thales and MBDA which have operations in UK too.

Where do you get the idea its a ‘future ‘ system ?

Sean

Once again misrepresenting what someone else has posted in order to demolish it. Strawman tactic, commonly used by the conspiracy community.

Duker

yawn … quote “ no benefit to the U.K. to win orders for parts of some future system”
Your own words demolish your later claim over using a Thales/MBDA system
Both sides of your face need to talk to each other

IMG_4258_jpg__55510.16988549921
Mattathias

life must be nauseating long for you every day peddling your world order here thinking people will care about what you said… is there a point to all this?

Duker

what-is-the-state-of-royal-navy-anti-ballistic-missile-capability ?

KiwiRob

I wonder how close the IDF are to running out of interceptors for the Iron Dome.

DaveyB

This is always a problem. How many is enough to provide protection and for how long? Anti-ballistic missile interceptors are not cheap, especially the likes of Arrow-3. Whereas a medium range ballistic missile is significantly cheaper, especially if the final stage is one piece and doesn’t separate to deliver a smaller re-entry vehicle.

In some respects Iran could have the upper hand if like it claims have over a thousand missiles that could reach Israel. However, Israel will only suffer so much before it strikes back. This is a given, Israel’s track record is very clear on reprisals, no matter where the threat is coming from.

David MacDonald

A good informative article. I would add that the Royal Navy is at least taking steps to address the problem, as outlined above, but the RAF has seemingly not even begun to think about it and the UK mainland is wide open to attack by not only ballistic missiles but also by more than a small number of cruise missiles and massed drones. 

RobW

Isn’t every country vulnerable in that way? I just cannot see a realistic defence other than deterrence and the ability to strike back decisively.

David MacDonald

I think we are probably more vulnerable than most comparable states. How would we respond if, for example, Putin were to fire fire 500 “cheap and cheerful” drones at us (of which the 6 typhoon squadrons might shoot down about 100), killing perhaps 100 people? Surely not by unleashing Trident. But reduced conventionally armed RN and RAF dangerously lowers the threshold of nuclear war as keep telling my friends and relations. However, with the exception of those who have served, no-one seems to understand or care!

Callum

There is a pretty significant counterpoint to that; where exactly is Putin getting 500 cheap and cheerful drones with the capacity to hit the UK mainland from?

They’re certainly not launching from the Kuznetsov, which means they’re either circling Norway or overflying NATO. At which point, we’re talking bigger, long-ranged drones that are not that cheap, making a journey across allied nations with varying degrees of air defence.

For Poland, the Baltic states, even Germany, its a credible scenario, but right now the threat against the UK mainland is unlikely to take the form of a drone Blitz. Cruise missiles from the open ocean, or ballistic missiles from there or further abroad are the most likely forms a large-scale assault would have to take.

Not that I don’t agree with you about the drawing down of our forces lowering the threshold for nuclear war, but with limited resources we need to focus them on the most likely threats

AlexS

They can be launched from a propose setup large submarine or merchants.

Callum

What submarine is launching even a fraction of 500 airborne drones? Russian industry is struggling to keep their deterrent fleet afloat, let alone divert resources to an underwater aircraft carrier.

Converted merchant vessels as modern day Q ships, on the other hand, are a far more likely scenario. You’re talking about pretty small, low-capability drones though. Russia doesn’t exactly have a large merchant navy though, and if tensions are getting high enough that a shooting war with NATO is on the cusp, you can guarantee any Russian flagged vessels are going to be being tracked.

DaveyB

Iran, have show cased a number of ISO containers that house Shahed drones. These ISOs can be mounted on the back of truck or left in a remote location and activated by remote data-link (mobile phone). Perhaps more sinister, is that Iran have shown the ISOs carried by coastal sized freighters. The ISO depending on size can contain upwards of 20 drones. that are launched directly from the ISO.

I would agree that this presents a more credible threat, as Iran can have deniability if a third party agent, like the Houthis use this delivery system. As they could quite easily commodore a ship a sail it within range of our coast and certain targets, especially with a range of around 1500 miles and carrying a possible 50kg warhead. As clearly shown in Ukraine, these drone are not only a nuisance, but are a clear threat to infrastructure and key targets.

However, we should not ignore the threat posed by cruise missiles or ballistic missiles. When you consider the straight line distance from Kaliningrad to London is 883 miles. Which puts it within easy reach of Russian land based Kalibr cruise missiles. Let alone the air launched Kinzhal ballistic missile.

It would be wrong to consider us safely ensconced behind our NATO partners.

Duker

Unless UK changes its name to Israel Iran arent interested in any thing like the British Isles. They just arent.
Im pretty sure the security and military advisors to the PM and cabinet are saying the same things

AlexS

Iran/Houthis sunk a British merchant Rubymar , a civilian ship – strange how was not news here and elsewhere.

D F

The reason is that Rubymar wasn’t British.

Duker

flying the flag of Belize, it was owned by a Lebanese national – the UK connection was an outdated forwarding address to a block of flats in Southampton for the Marshall Islands registered company Golden Adventure Shipping.

You should check facts before claiming them

https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1148459/Sunken-Rubymars-only-UK-link-was-its-disputed-insurance-cover

Last edited 1 month ago by Duker
AlexS

Thanks for correction.

Peter

Rubymar was not a British ship, neither owned by a Briton nor registered in the UK. The BBC admit thet they were misled in reporting it as British.

Last edited 1 month ago by Peter
Supportive Bloke

I which case those advisors are delusional and need to be sacked pronto.

You do realise the UK is called The Little Satan?

They would love to deniably hit us. And don’t think Putrid Putin and his henchmen wouldn’t love that too.

Duker

The fact is defence budget hasnt been bumped up like other countries have – remember Germanys €100 bill capital spending fund.
Its all a figment of the tabloid headlines that Iran is a danger to UK itself.

Supportive Bloke

I gave to agree – we need to get ahead of the evolving risks curve.

Callum

Do you have a source on the 20 drone option? I can find examples of 5, which is given the number of ISOs a merchantman can carry would still give a fairly hefty payload, but 20 seems ludicrously impractical.

We have to remember a few things though. For one thing, drones like the Shahed are individually less threatening than a Fairey Swordfish; the Stringbag is actually a good deal faster than the drone! We could certainly do with a large pool of Dragonfire and 40mm Bofors to defend key sites, but Stormer and Starstreak offer us deployable protection from these currently at least.

It’s definitely wrong to think of the UK as safe because Europe lies between us and Russia, however it’s certainly true that in a conventional conflict with NATO, Russia would have far more immediate targets it would need to strike with its limited arsenal of precision weapons. Including Belarus’s borders, Russia has in excess of 200 miles of NATO neighbour from Poland to Norway that it would need to support.

Beyond that, there’s hundreds, if not thousands of mainland military and infrastructure targets to hit that would restrict NATO’s ability to move troops to the front or support the war effort, which would be far more valuable than hitting anything in the UK beyond Faslane and AWE, and hitting anything nuclear would constitute an escalation.

In short, I think we need to be realistic about what defences the UK mainland actually needs relative to the likelihood of specific threats. We don’t need the same sort of comprehensive defence as Israel, but sufficient mass of point defence against cruise missiles and drones is needed to dissuade opportunistic attacks, and an ABM platform is an necessity

DaveyB

HI Callum, it was shown Al Jezzara news. I’ve seen the 5 Shahed launcher mounted on the truck. But the one the news channel showed was from an Iraqi military expo. It showed a 20ft and 40ft standard ISO filled with Shaheds. The voiceover said they had over 20 Shaheds in the 40ft ISO. Perhaps it was just Iranian propaganda! You got a fairly close up view of the truck and trailer with the 20ft ISO. Plus a still image of the 40ft ISO on a small freighter. They didn’t show you the insides of the ship’s ISO. So it could have been just spin.

I would think having Finland as part of NATO will be a bigger worry for Russia, as its really close to the North Sea Fleet’s Kola and White Sea peninsular bases. Which could quite easily be targeted and cut off.

I would imagine somewhere like Cypress would have the highest priority for a defensive system. That could cope with the multitude of threats that come out of the middle east. Possibly followed by the Falklands, then the UK.

Nigel Collins

A potential future fit for Typhoon/F-35 DaveyB?
AIM-174
comment image

Duker

Meteor is already a comparable missile to AIM-174/SM-6 as its a ducted ramjet with double the range of the normal USN AIM-120

Netking

Based on the reporting so far and it’s all speculation, the aim-174 likely has twice the range of meteor.

Duker

Air breathing is still better than AIM-120 and always be wary of US claims for its newest weapons.

Dont forget the SM-6 version has a booster 1st stage which the air launched version doesnt so throw away any numbers from the ship launched version
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Duker
Netking

Dont forget the SM-6 version has a booster 1st stage which the air launched version doesnt so throw away any numbers from the ship launched version”

This actually works to the advantage of the aim-174 as it’s already at altitude and speed from the aircraft and this is what gives it significant range over the ship launched sm-6.

Duker

Does the F-18 have the very long radar range of those massive high power flat plates of a DDG to know the exact point its firing at ?
The thin air at altitude is the main advantage but that works for Meteor as well.

Netking

No fighter aircraft has a radar like that but if it’s guidance is anything like the sm-6 then it can use offboard guidance from a E2-D or even a f-35

DaveyB

In this respect the F18 is literally a missile truck. Its radar even the newer APG-79 AESA, will not have the detection range to use the full range capability of the AIM-174. Therefore it will have to rely on 3rd parties giving it targeting information, such as an AEGIS equipped ship or more likely a E2C/D Hawkeye. The other asset providing it information would be the F35, play the scout role. Where it ranges far ahead and being all quiet and ninja like. Pointing out targets for the F18. We know that both the Hawkeye and F35 have been used to give mid-course update information to SM2 and SM6 missiles. The AIM-174 won’t be any different in this regard.

DaveyB

In the image above of the F18 carrying four AIM-174s. You can also see an AMRAAM on the next outboard pylon. This clearly shows the size difference between the two.

For context the AMRRAM is 12ft (3.65m) long with a diameter of 7″ (178mm). By contrast the AIM-174 is 16ft (4.9m) long and has a diameter of 13.5″ (340mm). Raytheon have said the AIM-174 has a range close to 200 miles (320ish km), when launched from the aircraft (though they didn’t give any launch parameters, ie height, speed etc).

But importantly the AIM-174 outranges the detection distance by quite some margin of the F18’s APG-79 AESA radar. Which means it’s really a missile truck relying on 3rd parties for targeting information and mid-course navigation updates. As a fleet defence weapon this is an ideal replacement for the Tomcat and its Phoenix missiles. But will require a Hawkeye or a link from an AEGIS system for target acquisition and guidance.

However, its the offensive capabilities that are more interesting. As its likely the F18 will be teamed with F35s acting as passive scouts far ahead. That can then relay information back to the F18 covertly. Pretty much a scout/sniper scenario.

I think its fair to compare the AIM-174 to Meteor, though it does outrange Meteor. Predominantly due to the amount of fuel the AIM-174 carries. However, because the AMRAAM has a better fineness ratio (length to width) than AIM-174, it is a less draggy. So in theory the AMRAAM will glide further and loose less speed than AIM-174.

Meteor’s fineness ratio and glide rate is worse than AMRAAM, but will be better than AIM-174. But perhaps more importantly when flying a flattened quasi-ballistic path. Meteor will have higher energy at the terminal phase. If the distance to the target was say 150km, as AIM-174 would be gliding and Meteor would still be propelled.

An interesting take on Meteor, would be a super Meteor. This would use an airframe similar in size to AIM-174. But would now hold a much larger ducted rocket engine (ramjet) along with a lot more fuel. The performance will depend on the scaled up fineness ratio. This will give you a missile with a shed load more range, a higher cruising speed, along with a higher terminal speed than AIM-174.

Nigel Collins

Many thanks for painting a clear and understandable picture of the differences between the missiles in question.

I tend to agree, a larger version of Meteor would indeed sufice. It might just be on the cards already!
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Nigel Collins
Duker

Thanks for that

Nigel Collins

You’re welcome!

SailorBoy

Super Meteor for the win!
That would essentially be an air to air cruise missile, surely?
A bit like that early French idea that the faster FC/ASW should have secondary air to air capability.
For Meteor, I am imagining something with an enormous belly air intake and side strakes.
Or could you use thin air intakes like Meteor’s as a form of strake?

DaveyB

Adding a belly intake (F16 like) would significantly increase the drag. Especially after its run out of fuel and needs to glide to the target. But would allow for a significant increase in air volume being available for the ramjet.

Increasing the intake area of the current Meteor side intakes, would be an obvious solution. Though these again are quite draggy.

Perhaps a more elegant solution is to follow the intake used on Sea Dart, which is a nose intake. This allows for a much smoother outer body, making it less draggy. Which is an important when the missile runs out of fuel and becomes a glider.

The downside of a nose intake is that it reduces the size of the radar antenna. Due to it needing to fit in the inlet (shock) cone.

One thing to bear in mind with ramjets is that unlike a rocket powered missile. You have to consider the airflow when conducting very tight turns. Under certain conditions the air intake may have a restricted air flow, through the missile body blanking off the air or the angle of attack creates a tangential shock wave which interrupts the airflow. To get around this problem the missile’s flight computer will limit either the angle of attack during certain maneuvers or not turn as tightly. It can also roll the missile so the intake is in the positive airflow when doing a negative g turn. Much like the early Spitfires having to do a half roll when diving after Me109s.

This may sound like quite a restriction, but in real life it’s not. The missile will still turn much tighter than any manned aircraft.

The main benefit of the ducted rocket (ramjet) is that you can throttle it. Which means for very long range engagements, you can throttle back the engine to make it cruise under power. Which over the engagement distance means the missile has a higher average speed compared to a pure rocket powered missile. As the rocket powered missile after its run out of fuel glides to its target. But in doing so, due to the higher drag factor slows down the missile.

Another key factor for engagements is time to target. The quicker the better. Which means you want a missile with very high acceleration. Which you’d think favours the rocket powered missile. But a ramjet can get near the rocket’s thrust. But has the advantage of sustaining that thrust over a longer period of time even with throttle wide open. As it will carry a larger volume of fuel. So it’s average again is better.

SailorBoy

Is an annular midbody air intake an option?
Scooping in the fuselage (like an area ruled 1950s jet) and then having the ramjet intake?
Then you get the wider nose and a wider intake area, and you only lose part of the airflow in a turn.

DaveyB

It might work, the body shape to the angular intake will need a shallow continuous angle and be smooth with no protrusions to disturb the airflow.

There is one critical factor that will need to be addressed. Which is the strength at that mid-body section. This will be a natural weak spot prone to flexible. As you’ve cut away the outer tube and the inner joint will smaller in diameter. Bracing strakes could be used. But will need careful design so as not to drastically disrupt the airflow.

Or you keep the seeker, avionics and warhead forward tube parallel and the rear ramjet section uses s a wider diameter tube. This will be draggier, but stronger structurally.

SailorBoy

This is getting into french-ramjet territory now, but I like it.
Does the intake on Meteor really need to be that long? If the annular intake were around the fins then you wouldn’t need so much wide diameter stuff.
Or maybe if you had more wide bits, there would be room for more fuel with ducting the air into a narrower space.

Duker

Meteor already made for UK, France, Germany , Italy, Spain and Sweden.
The configuration is essential with a long intake duct ( same reason Concorde had them to slow the air down) feeding into the centre as the combustion takes place inside the centre body at rear , the side bodies carry components

meteorcutaway1
SailorBoy

I hadn’t realised quite how far forwards the combustion chamber is in Meteor, that’s a very interesting diagram.
Essentially to add more fuel would require only increasing the diameter around the very middle of the missile, with the seeker and rear end staying the same.
I always tend to think of AAMs as just tubes of fuel, it isn’t obvious how much of the body is full of electronics and the motor.

Duker

Not necessary for reasons above

SailorBoy

So just make an enormous fat Meteor?
I’m up for that

Duker

Improving the fuel and other changes will increase the powered range to 300km

Duker

Thanks for that . The Meteor doesnt do cruise after fuel runs out, its powered throughout its intercept via the variable flow ducted rocket motor
There has been ongoing work to extend the missile range to 300km (powered) through improvements in solid fuel and other areas since its first flight was nearly 20 yrs ago

Clearly the US is throttling the integration onto F-35 combat system for political reasons to build sales for their own missiles
Cropped fin variant for F-35B
comment image.webp

Peter S

I agree. ABM defence is not only very expensive but not wholly effective. We don’t know whether Israel’s failure to intercept all, even most, of Iran’s latest salvo is a judgement of the cost or an example of the limitations of the technology.
Deterrence may be a more effective, and certainly more affordable, option for the UK. Long range non nuclear missiles able to hit with precision would likely deter a non nuclear attack. If Ukraine could hit Russian cities at similar intensity to Russia’s attacks on Ukraine, would Russia continue?

Duker

Apparently there have been 40 or so impact craters counted using satellite images at one of the targets Nevatim AB , home of the F35s

Peter S

The deterrence calculus is complicated. Clearly, Iran’s first attack on Israel was symbolic, made in the expectation that Israeli defences would prevent serious harm. The second attack with ballistic missiles was also made with full knowledge of Israeli defensive capabilities. We don’t yet know whether those systems were partly unsuccessful or not fully deployed.
But if Israel hadn’t possessed effective anti missile defence, would Iran have risked killing Israeli civilians, knowing that Israel’s only option would be a much more deadly counter attack?
It’s almost as though Iran felt able to launch attacks because of Israel’s defences.

AlexS

300 missiles and drones are not symbolic.

Peter S

The attack was notified to the US in advance and undertaken
a) to avoid losing the trust of its population and allies
b) to avoid inflicting such casualties on Israeli that would justify a massive Israeli counter attack.
So symbolic or token.
The second strike with ballistic missiles is harder to read. It seems to have been intended to inflict serious damage, thus contradicting the obvious caution in the first strike.
It is possible that intervention by Khameini, who is unhinged, led to the second strike and the abandonment of previous caution.
Deterrence calculus is complicated.

Duker

yes. That was the first attack – after Israel bombed the embassy in Damascus
No advance warnings of the second one which was directed at two airbases and Mossad HQ and a signals annex

Duker

I understand they targeted two airbases and Mossad main HQ plus a signals intel base near the coast.
40 impact sites for an AB in the Negev desert seems to be a god success rate but thats a dispersed site anyway.

Its almost a repeat of 1944, BM arent a war winning weapon , despite the better targeting but smaller warhead

Supportive Bloke

Their BMs clearly don’t have very good accuracy.

Actually quite hard to steer BMs so no surprise there.

Duker

Irans top end BM is steerable with small fins
https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-ballistic-missile-program

Ballistic20missiles20Great20Prophet1
Supportive Bloke

As I said it is quite hard to steer BMs – it is a non trivial matter as the missiles is changing through different speed and air density regimes where the control surfaces have totally different effects.

But never mind the fact it has flaps in the back makes the difference – apparently!

Duker

They ‘steer’ in terminal phase which requires some target recognition as well.
The lower stages fall away much earlier in flight

Grant

The RAF is a shambles. We all complain on this site about the dire situation of the Navy surface fleet, but at least replacements are on order. The reduction in Combat Air is staggering – despite how much politicians love using the Air Force to flex their muscles – the RAF will soon be smaller than the Spanish, Italian and Swedish air forces and is already smaller than the French and German air forces. All five are buying new gen 4 aircraft whereas there is no funded plan in place to recapitalise the RAF, other than the hope that Tempest will become something world class (and survives the upcoming defence review)

ATH

Tempest is as secure as the T83 and much more secure than the T32. With the exception of nuclear everything is at risk in the defence review unless it would cost more to cancel than to buy.

Grant

Yes but the Navy has SSN-AUKUS, T26, FSS, T31. These platforms will eventually re-capitalise our fleet and the investments are all secure. The RAF has nothing as far as I can tell, except the hope of Tempest and maybe a few more F35s (they will have to share with the RN)

ATH

That’s in large part down to the RAF’s equipment being on average younger than the RN’s. The replacement cycle timing in each service is different.

Duker

Whats the F-35B but new 4th generation for RAF. Thats still being delivered up to a total of 75 or so- only mid 30s have been received .

The complete replacement of the Typhoon radar with a capability step up has been funded but not in service.

The only smoke and mirrors is the Typhoon F2 from Tranche1 have been ‘held back in service’ instead of being retired , but in reality they are stored and not used having Stealth changed designation to FGR4 to hide the reality from the politicians in the commons who ask questions

Paul T

The state of the RAF is not down to / the fault of the RAF – the UK Govt/HMT/MOD feed available Funding to all of the Services,they can only work with what they are given.Fast Air is not cheap now,Typhoon sustainment and F35B Procurement suck up most of that budget,with what little left spread over its many other commitments.

Sean

The U.K. joined the ESSI for ABM defence of the U.K.

David MacDonald

ESSI, at least for the UK, is more of an aspiration than a firm programme and, as far as I can see, no significant UK funding has yet been allocated. You may think that the continental NATO members would shoot everything down before it crossed the North Sea but, to me, that would seem a somewhat optimistic assumption.

Sean

Wrong, the U.K. as a founding member of ESSI is fully committed to it. German as the lead is already making procurements fit the programme, no doubt we’ll be getting our portion of the bill in due course.

Putin’s cronies are no doubt planting the idea that our NATO allies in continental Europe wouldn’t intercept missiles overflying them. Which begs the question, why are you aiding the enemy?

Duker

Are you in the trenches in Ukraine then ? Why not

Sean

(a) I’m not Ukranian
(b) It’s illegal for British citizens to do so (Foreign Enlistment Act 1870)

The Head of MI5 only days ago stated that GRU agents had carried out “arson, sabotage and more dangerous actions conducted with increasing recklessness” in the U.K. This is in addition to the sustained cyber attacks and the seeding of conspiracy theories (anti-vaccine, climate change denial, etc) to cause societal division.
Sounds like an enemy to me.

Why aren’t you out campaigning for Trump and MAGA morons in the swing states?

Duker

I prefer Kamala Harris
Its not like Britain or Europe and other western countries with slew of political parties which cover every shade of opinion

Last edited 30 days ago by Duker
Duker

Illegal ? It’s a dead letter law nowdays There’s been 100s of private citizens plus some hush hush active service soldiers.
Even some fighting for Putin.!

Sean

Not according to Dominic Grieve when he was serving as Attorney General
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/27/liz-truss-says-she-would-back-britons-going-to-ukraine-to-fight-russia

As with all crime, prosecution isn’t automatic and is decided by the CPS as to whether it’s in the public interest or not on a case-by-case basis.

There are Brits that fought for ISIS and the Nazis, so no surprise there’s a couple of idiots volunteering to be Russian cannon fodder.

Last edited 29 days ago by Sean
ATH

As always the first issue is money. Are the U.K. voters willing to support parties proposing to increase taxes to pay for ABM systems and which parties will propose paying for ABM.

AlexS

UK government is awash with money.

Why increasing taxes when UK is at record taxes at 44%. What about cuts to the political economy?

ATH

Because that’s what politicians of all parties think helps get them elected. There’s a very strong lobby for all the existing government spending and a weak lobby for extra defence spending.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

All

Lots of points…

First of all is the really big geo-political issue; the one which is “probably” the elephant in the room. The current Israeli vis Iranian (including allies Yeman) ballistic missile war is the first one ever – throughout all of world history to date – to be fought out between two combatant nations that are not next-door neighbours. Thus these ballistic missiles are flying in and out of the two combatant nations over the heads of various neutral nations: especially those peacefully living in Jordan and Saudi Arabia.

Also, no mention by the NL Editor of either

  • The USN’s AEGIS ashore BMD system: currently operated by the USN in both Romania (NSF) and Poland (AAMDS).
  • Also barelly a mention of the US Army’s Patriot systems: which have been deployed on a long endurance camping holiday in eastern Poland ever since that very naughty schoolboy Mr Putin decided to redraw the map of Europe back in Feb 2022…
  • These are both “live” operational BMD systems that are stationed on the European mainland.

Next, as was quite-correctly noted in this article, one can have all sorts of different ballistic missiles. They come in all sorts of different sizes and capabilities.

However, the really key techical issue was only just touched on here: the need for regional / theatre-wide high-capacity – and also totally reliable – data links between all of the widely scattered defensive systems and especially the key sensors. In BMD-land, a fraction of a milli-second of delay on any comms link really can be the one and only difference between total sucess and an abject and total failure.

Total BMD defence – to cope with all of the different sizes shapes and ranges of threats. – thus needs a layered system of several different sized missiles and many different types of sensors located over a wide geographical area. That entire capability can never ever be 100% effective.

So one size definitely does not fit all…..so IF the UK wants its own proper BMD capability, then the first thing it needs to get straight is to do some proper tri-service cooperation. Overall, UK BMD can never be an “RN only” issue.

Our first UK priority really should be deploying a ground-based system in Cyprus. Second and third on the list for protection should be us protecting the key forward UK bases closest to Iran – in Oman (within range of both the Houthis and also Iran itself) and definitely the key “space base” at Diego Garcia.

As for the proposed RN Type 83: a lemon. One key learning from these recent engagements must be to throw the current MOD plans in the waste bin and start all over again….why?…. because….. if one is going to deploy any proper long-ranged BMD system on board a RN warship = then the ship needs to be packing a proper-sized (i.e. long) BMD missile. The T83 ship, as it is currently configured, is simply too small (and also probably too unstable a hull) for fitting in the really long missies that one really needs for truely effective regional BMD.

—————

Interestingly, the very best open-sourced intelligence (i.e. Channel 602 / Sky News) shows us that the two big attacks on Israel by Iran this year were made using two very different types / sizes of missile. Please note the very different re-entry trajectories – and especially the much-faster re-entry speeds – of the warheads used in the latest attack compared with those much-slower ones the mad mullas used first time around..

Also, during the first attack, Iran definitely told the USA in advance: which did not do this time around…..

Therefore I reckon that, to date, those naughty Iranians have been quite-deliberately, having a couple of practice sessions. To date, they have only been been probing and testing those key capabilities and weaknesses of the hard-pressed Israeli BMD defences……

Even worse, today it is quite-impossible to know whether, or not, an incoming balllistic missile flying toward one (i.e. one with an obviously evil intent) has either either a conventional warhead – or a nuke or a chemical one – fitted to its pointed end.

Thus, strategically – as RobW has quite-correctly pointed out directly above – effective deterence is always THE real key……

So, the big unspoken question: what are the Mad Mullas of Tehran planning to do next?

————-

What was not mentioned here on Navy Lookout (again crucially) was that ballistic missiles can come with all sorts of different types of warheads attached to their pointed end.

Quickly swapped over, in about thriy minutes flat, for any well-trained team of EKFF (Enemy Kwik-Fit Fitters)

  • Only conventional warheads have been used to date (tactically a very big nuiscence: strategically however = utterly worthless)
  • Iran has probably not got a nuclear capability (or at least, probably thanks to Mossad arranging a few “deniable” fatal car accidents not quite yet….)
  • However if Israeli is ever attacked with ballistic missiles carrying chemical warheads – then god help us – the ***** will really hit the fan. The Israelis will freak out: and then hit back far far harder than they have, to date, in Gaza…

—————-

Overall, the best form of BMD against Iran is the very same one that was orginally devised by the Crab’s very own Bomber Harris back in 1944.

What should be done today is the very same BMD techique that was used back in the days when Nazi V2 missiles were attacking perfectly innocent rows of terraced houses here in leafy Chiswick.

Quite simply = carpet bomb the Iranian factory(s) producing these missiles.

regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Pub Quiz Question
The first attempt by the RAF to shoot down a airborne Nazi V2 ballistic missile (i.e. one already in flight) was made, over Holland, using what type of RAF warplane?

David MacDonald

How about BMD defences for Diego Garcia (which I visited twice in two different frigates many decades ago in my long gone RN career) Ooops, sorry I forgot, we are about to pay Mauritius to take this and give it, together with the other 60 or so Chagos Islands, to the Chinese.

PS: Is the answer Typhoon?

Duker

Diego Garcia is a US base , run by USN hence its name NSF Diego Garcia and will get a 99 yr lease with Mauritius .
World Court ruled for Mauritius some years back

Your claims are totally false

Grant

The ruling was advisory however. Any other country would have ignored it.

BB85

The whole thing is corrupt, the fact Mauritius hired one of Sir Freebies best mates to negotiate for them shows where the UK governments priorities where on the matter.
I have little faith in the previous administration either, it wouldn’t surprise me if Mauritius had a Tory ‘VIP’ on the payroll during the previous negotiations too.

Duker

Decision was made well before the election. negotiations were started on the final details when Liz Truss was PM- which means the US base at Diego Garcia remains but under lease from Mauritius not UK

Duker

Thats just a legal technicality, still doesnt mean Mauritius had a valid case
Doesnt change the decision- but because Britain refused to be a party – the decision is advisory not binding.

So International rules arent for the big countries just the small ones.

We know the US refused to sign UN Laws of the Sea or allow the War Crimes people to investigate their soldiers because International Laws dont apply to them

BB85

The World Court lol, as if that has a shred of legitimacy.
Mauritius has zero territorial claim to the Chagos Islands. It’s a disgrace they where handed to Mauritius while the Chagosians where frozen out of the process which makes the entire process illegitimate.
If they wanted to give the Islands back to its native inhabitants and lease the air force base fine, but Mauritius which has been bought by the Chinese had zero territorial claim over it other than they where both grouped together under the British empire.

Duker

Chagos Is were part of Mauritius colony for as long as Britain had it.

British Indian Ocean Territory was a fiction created just before independence as part of the Polaris missiles deal with UK who would lease the main atoll for the US to build a base.

Your claim about its being a separate territory is nonsense as Chagos was a dependency of french colony of Mauritius too up till 1814
The main language on Mauritius is still french

Duker

Was part of Mauritius since well before 1814 when Britain got all those islands from France. The only islands hived off were Seychelles as its own colony in 1903

Map of the Crown Colony of Mauritius and its islands before independence

1024px-Mauritius_claim_islands.svg1
Last edited 1 month ago by Duker
AlexS

Do you mean V1 or V2?

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Pub Quiz Hints


  • David M. It was not a Typhoon
  • AlexS. Typed correctly as V2

regards Peer (Irate Taxpayer)

AlexS

A fighter tried to hit a V2? maybe in the boost phase but that is almost over the enemy launcher.

SailorBoy

Yes, I’ve heard of the story.
Essentially the fighter was low over Holland and a V2 lifted off over the trees in front of him, so he had a pop at it.
No idea which one it was, though.

Jonno

Tempest.

Duker

Neither. A B-24 claimed it
At the speed of the V2 they have it would be impossible to hit with aimed machine guns.
The bombers would have seen them climbing up into stratosphere however
But the USAF Historical branch checked the daily records logged by the 24th BG or similar and found nothing
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/did-B-24-really-shoot-down-V-2-rocket-1944-180953085/

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Pub Quiz Answer

The Worlds 1st ever ABM / BMD Interception

The first ever attempt to shoot down a enemy ballistic missile in flight was made on the 14th Feb 1945, over Holland (quite near the Hague).

A small flight of RAF Spitfires – which was patrolling the area looking for mobile launchers and thus flying at a very low level – saw the V2 ballistic missle being launched, from a Nazi mobile launcher missile launcher hidden inside the treeline, rising up directly in front of them

As the V2 rose above the treeline, they opened up on it with their guns.

However accounts differ somewhat as to whether, or not, they then hit anything (either the missile and /or the launcher)

One of the Spitfire pilots was Raymond Baxter. Many of you of my age will remember him, as the presenter of the very-long-running BBC 1 science and techology programme Tomoorow’s World.

regards Peter (The Irate BBC Licence Fee Payer)

Duker

Regarding carpet bombing sites in Iran ?

You dont know how big the country is
It covers a distance from Belfast to Naples , or this map centered differently

c68190bd0afa6dbc2880fb059ceb49e285f8f48f1
SailorBoy

I think you, and lots of the other commenters on here, have made the assumption that BMD automatically means defending land targets.
However, the RN is now at least on paper a carrier group navy. Given that CSGs are one of the few feasible naval targets for ballistic missiles, what I see here is the Navy waking up to the disaster that could occur if the carrier were to be attacked in a narrow strait.
What do you mean about the T83 design?
We have only a single concept image that appears to be an enormous air defence cruiser. Even an Arleigh Burke, not much bigger than a T45, can carry and use SM-3, arguably the most proven BMD missile around. Heck, even a T26 could fire one over datalink.

Whale Island Zookeeper

True. But given the UK’s geography I would say for the UK they are one and the same thing. Never mind the costs of having two systems. If the UK does invest in BMD a sea based would probably be the optimum solution. VLS could be built into barges and moored close to most major centres (apart from Birmingham, but it wouldn’t be much of a loss.) Sensors could be based ashore and afloat. Again this is yet another scenario where the UK misses out not being an AEGIS user.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Sailorboy and Whale Island Zookeeper

I pointed out in my post that an incoming enemy ballistic missile does not care “one little jot” whether it is being aimed at either a land-based or a sea-based target. So, I agree with the Zookeeper:they are effectively one and the same thing.

However, for really-properly-effective BMD / ABM one (ideally) – one ideally must have ” worldwide” only one type of system: especially for a wide-area defensive “net”

That needs to be a fully-intergrated suite of multiple missiles, sensors and radars.

That key rule applies no matter where and what and where the intended target that you are planning to defend is located….

….and that key requirement is nothing whatsoever to do with “cost”

It is essential simply because “handing over” of the masses of data being trasmitted between two completely different types of friendly ABM / BMD systems is always going to be, technically, very very challenging.

Also the complexity of that data – which please remember is going to be constantly changing and being updated during the incoming missile(s) flight – might just take those vital computers and communications links slightly too long to process and transmit.

————————

That key issue of fast inter-operability between those widely-scattered units is undoudtedly why the USA has previously decided to field their Aegis Ashore system in both Poland and Romania.

Having been orginally developed to protect a well-spread-out carrier strike group, the US Aegis system is definitely well-optimised as an area-wide defensive system. It is one capable of cordinating multiple launchers and many sensors: i.e. those which are scattered over a very wide geograhical area.

In contrast, Patriot is well-optimised to be “point defence” system.

Howeverif the US of A was starting from scatch again today: I very much doubt that it would be be considering developing two very-different ABM / BMD systems: one for the Amy and one for the Navy.

———————-

Interestingly, both the UK and Israel both have quite-similar geography. Both countres have relatively small and narrow land masses, with lots of water quite nearby. Also both counties cities and key military installations are quite-frequently “clustered together”

Accordingly, if the UK does ever invest in a proper ABM / BMD system, then – right from the very outset of what will definitely be a very expensive development and procurement programme – it must be just one fully-intergrated system that can potentially be used by all three of our armed services anywhere in the world: RN / RAF / Army.

Doing anything else would be a real waste of cash…and it would not “do the business” when you really need it to work….

—————-

Therefore, to finish on a word of warning ….

……..those USN sea-based BMD systems frankly did not do very well (at all) during that latest Iranian attack on Israel last week… it looks to me like a classic case of “the wrong type of incoming ballistic missile”.

Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Footnote To Zookeeper

  • Any effective future UK ABM / BMD system will definitely be too big to be able fit into a canal-sized narrowboat moored up in the middle of Birmingham.

Footnote to Sailorboy

There are only two rules for where and how to effectively deploy big aircaft carriers:

  • Rule 1.
  • Do move them in anywhere which is very close to enemy-held territory (i.e. into any narrow seas and/or confined straits)
  • Rule 2.
  • Do not ever forget Rule 1

That is because no ABM / BMD system is ever going to be 100% effective: especially when it is operating in a “inherently tight” situation – one where there is only ever going to be a very limited warning time.

Furthermore, in any confined sea area, a big carrier is exceptionally vulnerabvle to being hit by many other – and various – forms of enemy ordenance – so anything from a torpedo from a small submarine; anti-ship missiles; glide bombs dropped by an aircraft; land based artillary; a mad mullah driving a kamikazie-inspired speedboat etc etc

Hugo

We have no idea how big T83 is going to be so i dont see how you can call it too small? Unless theres been some news

OkamsRazor

IT(P), was pretty much with you until “ As for the proposed RN Type 83: a lemon.”
Well unless you possess godlike powers of prophecy and can see the future of a ship that hasn’t been designed yet! Why would you make such a stupid comment?
As the RNs Type 45 is currently best in class and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, yes better than ABs, and the USN doesn’t seem to be able to do anything right at the moment, never mind building a replacement. So on current form, when the RN builds the Type 83, it will probably also be best in class.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

SailorBoy, Hugo and OkamsRazor

A useful set of comments…..

When it comes to ballistic missile defence systems, it is utterly irrelevant whether, or not, the intended target (i.e. in this case: us!) is on land or out at sea.

Missile targeting software cares “not a jot” for “what or where” the target is!

The enemy missile simply flys through the sky and then it (usually) hits “somewhere close” to its intended target (known in the technical jargon as the CEP: Circular Error of Probability).

Thus an accurate enemy missile with a small warhead, OR a bigger missile carrying a larger warhead, will (quite often) damage, or destroy, its intended target.

And during the orginal Cold War (1945-1989) ballistic missiles were frankly not very accurate: so they almost all carried nuclear warheads…..

And thus the key engineering principles of ABM have not changed very much since the USAF installed its Sprint ABM system back in 1972. Then, as now, that particular ABM was one of the fastest missiles ever made…

We also had plenty of practice with ABM back in 1990-91; both with shooting down scuds over Israel and saudi airspace – and also what the SAS liked to call direct action (in one case, quite literally malleting a SCUD launcher with a sledgehammer…..when they ran out of ammo).

Furthermore plenty of inncocent Iraqi fuel tanker drivers suffered direct hits from the USAF = becaue a mobile Rusain made SCUD launcher looks almost exactly the same – on an AWACS / JSTARS radar screen – as a fuel tanker (Note: both road veicles are about the same size; and both have long curved tops: which stands out a mile on those types of radars).

It is just that the current generation of officers has forgotten what used to be called by us old gits “common knowledge” ABM (i.e. up until 1991),

-and so the smartphone weilding generation is currently in the process of “reinventing the wheel” by calling it BMD

————————-

With regards to the RN defending itself against ballistic missiles that are being aimed close to, or actually at, the ship itself – I must 100% agree with Okhams Razor = the current RN point defence capability is “pretty good”.

Thus the RN’s current capability, both on the T45 and, at shorter ranges, even others ship’s new seaceptor missiles, should work well.

(Note. it is worth noting at this point that sea-ceptor (RN) and sky-sabre (Army) are essentially one and the very same BMD system: which is a very good example of the type of cooperation that we need far more of….)

That ABM capability can be traced right back to the 1970’s and the earliest trials of trainable Seawolf (remember them?).

———————-

My comments of yesterday were all, very clearly, commenting upon on the planned near-future attempts to:

  • to defend / defeat against the bigger and longer ranged ballistic missiles – which fly rather higher and thus also have a far faster rentry speed. Their speed makes them very very awkward to hit.
  • those enemy missiles which are not being aimed close to the ship

Thus “wide area” BMD clearly requires both longer ranged sensors and, especially, also a much bigger missile (for a longer range) than any “point defence” BMD system will usually require.

Therefore a bigger missile requires a bigger launcher,,,,,,

Thus any ship – or indeed a land based system – which has been properly designed from first principles for wide area ballsitic missile defence will, by definition, have to “go large” – to carry big missiles and big sensors

Also, very recent experence shows us that it needs to carry plenty of them!

————————-

and thus, in terms of the open source information currently available on the possible future design of the RN’s T83 ship, I was “running with” the government’s offical Future Air Dominance Paper (one written by a few goons = aka management consultants)

This paper was quoted at length in Navy Lookout’s article of 9th June 2023

Options for the Royal Navy’s Future Air Dominance System and the Type 83 destroyer | Navy Lookout

Unfortunately, the writers of the Future Air Dominace paper are not, and how can I put this next phrase politely – “not very technically competent”

Thus they singularly failed to appreciate the really key engineering differences between “point defence” and “area defence” ABM systems

The two open-source exhibits for the prosecution are, your honour, as follows:

https://cdn.asp.events/CLIENT_Defence__8EE24275_D70D_4386_936BB8991B847FF8/sites/Navy-Leaders-2022/media/CNE23-Slide-Library/FSF-Stream-B—Day-2—1615—Goldsmith.pptx.pdf

First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Ben Key DSEI 2023 Keynote – GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

There is a very big difference betwen being technically competent and looking good and spouting big STEM words at an DESI / RUSI organised event……

——————————-

Today, a very important lesson for the current Gulf War (No 3) needs to be urgently relearned from Gulf War One (1990 -91).

In ABM world, properly thought through and also correctly targeted offensive action is always much better than last-minute.com defensive actions (i.e. why Members of Parliament have previously accused the RN of having a Porqupine mentality)

That is because, technically, it is always far far easier to hit an enemy ballistic missile(s) whilst it is on the ground: (i.e. factory, storage site, down in a deep silo, or travelling by road) = and thus when the missile itself is “nearly stationary”…..

,,..because waiting until after it has already been launched – and thus when it is already are flying through the air (or space) towards you at several thousands – or in some cases, tens of thousands of miles per hour – is simply leaving it far too late…..

ABM (now BMD) is a classic case of “the early bird catches the worm”

regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

TLA translator:

  • ABM – Anti-Ballistic Missile – a 20th century TLA (in very common useage up until 1991)
  • BMD – Ballstic Missile Defence – a trendy 21st century TLA
  • (Note BMD is used by naval officers who are far too young, and thus far too inexperienced, to have been around very much during the 20th century…..except maybe at prep school).

PS And please keep guessing on the correct answer to the pub quiz question. A couple of people are “getting warm”

DaveyB

Ah yes, the school bus scud launcher, remember it well. Although Patriot did fairly well for anti-ballistic missile defence against the Iraqi Scuds. It was never originally intended for that role. Initially it was purely an anti-aircraft SAM, that then became rather good at knocking down cruise missiles as well.

The Patriot missiles being used were not programmed to cope with the passing speed of Scud in the terminal phase. Although Scud being a singular weapon, which was easily detected by radar. Intercepting it was quite challenging. As the proximity fuzing when initiated, detonated the warhead too late. So the Scud invariably passed the Patriot’s quickly forming debris field. This lead to a number of near misses. The saddest being the twin Scud hits on Riyadh. This led to urgent in the field software upgrades and changes to the fuzing parameters to Patriot. Which then had a slightly better interception rate. But by no means was it perfect.

It wasn’t until the introduction of the PAC 2 missile, which used an active radar seeker, did Patriot become truly capable of being used against ballistic missile threats.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

DaveyB

Back in the mid 1970’s, what ultimately became the Patriot missile system had orginally been conceived by the US Army as being both a SAM and ABM system: so one (theoretically) capable of shooting down both aircraft and ballistic missiles. It was orginally authorised and funded by Congress with that dual capability / function in mind.

Later on, that “ABM capability” was specifically being developed and refined to be a direct counter to the soviet-era nuclear-tipped SS-20’s ballistic missles. These were being deployed on mobile launchers right across eastern Europe.

The SS-20 was basically a much improved – and thus much longer ranged – 1980’s version of the orginal 1950’s era “Scud”

Those older Scuds were then sold off to various Soviet allies: including to Egypt and Iraq.

Furthermore, in the early 1980’s, it was in “diplomatic retaliation” for the deployment of the SS-20 in eastern Europe that NATO then introduced into western Europe both tomahawk cruise missiles and also the now-long-forgotten-about Pershing threatre ballistic missiles.

That highly-charged political decision thus caused huge demostrations, by CND and others, throughout all of the 1980’s.

However, during the middle of the Patriot’s development phase, it was realised that the radar’s, computer hardware and software etc – i.e. all those key bits that are vital for “proper ABM” – were simply not up to the job. It was cutting-edge techology: and back then the cutting edge was frankly “too blunt”.

So, initially, it was made operational only as a long-range air defence system (i.e. traditional SAM) .

Then, during Gulf War One, when Saddam quite-unexpectedly started firing Scuds into both Israel and Saudi – Patriot launchers were very quickly airlifted directly out to the Middle East. They all went straight out of the airport gate and straight into action.

Quite simply, they were deployed there because -paraphrasing – “they were the only thing we have available that might possibly work“.

You are quite correct: the software orginally fitted to the system in 1990 was simply was not ready for the task in hand.

  • Thus multiple launches were often made when the computer thought it saw several incoming missiles (rather than one warhead and a lot of “space junk” – arising from the now defunct rocket booster breaking up)
  • On other occasions, manual overides were made – launching quickly when the computer got confused.
  • and, as you righty say, the warhead’s “fuzing” was still set up to deal with aircraft – however incoming ballistic missile warheads move much faster than even supersonic aircraft….

Thus very many quick-fixes were made to its software. Some worked: some did not….

However the worst incident was not the one you mentioned in Riyadh.

  • One “unusually accurate” Scud directly hit the US logistics barracks built on the quayside at the key Saudi port of Dhahran
  • That one quite-devasting direct hit caused a very significant proportion of all allied casualties incured during the entire Gulf War
  • More died there, hundreds of miles behind the front-line, than were killed by Iraqii forces out on the front line!
  • That direct hit on that very-unlucky US logistics unit was – ultimately – blamed on “faulty Patriot software” i.e computer said no…..

I will fully agree with your key final point. It was only when the upgraded variants were introduced did Patriot really become very useful as a “proper” ABM / BMD system.

regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer).

PS…. and today it takes over two decades to get Sea Venom’s computer software into operational service! (see NL feature of yesterday) These young kids who are writing modern missile software really need to get off their bean-bags…..and get their act together….

DaveyB

Hi Pete, cheered for filling in the blanks. I guess it didn’t help that the earlier Patriot used semi-active radar homing. So its accuracy would be good not brilliant.

The advent of the active radar seeker for missiles has changed the goal posts. Aster is regularly directly hitting drone targets, including Qinetiq’s Ratler. When it gets the new Ka seeker, thus will improve even more. Pity is not an AESA, but I’m sure that’s a further development.

I met a few Patriot lads and lasses in Iraq during Op Telic. As there was no threat, they were volunteered to do guard duty on the MOBs. A lot of them did actually volunteer for the job, as it meant they’d get extra money and bonuses for the family.

I’ve heard that there is a mass shortage of software engineers in the defence industry. They just can’t recruit them. As they can get more money elsewhere.

Supportive Bloke

That is the problem with siloed software development. People get frustrated and leave.

Very few have an overview of how it all works.

It then takes time to bring people up to speed in their silo.

The biggest problem is often that the software architects, who can see across the silos, aren’t actually that good or aren’t good communicators/people managers. It is a very hard role.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Supportive Bloke

Other key issues with military-grade software development often are:

  • Unlike so much of the civilian sotware that is now being developed for apps and games and advertising and even driverless cars etc etc – the controls software necessary for “proper military-grade engineering applications” (i.e. those applications which are often defined as being safety critical) always needs to be very rigerously designed, verifed and then tested long before it ever goes out into the big wide world. It cannot be “tweeked” afterwards.
  • Unfortunately far too many coders, especially those who only ever went into computing because it is a very lucrative business to be working in, often have a “arts” background.
  • Surprisingly few coders have ever studied first for a more-traditional engineering disciple: i.e. one that inherently requires a designer to “get it right first time”.
  • Frankly many coders who were originally from that “arty” background are simply not up to the job of completing that final 2% of the code: i.e. the key part of the overall systems engineering that (ultimately) makes everything work properly together.
  • So, like the old phrase that “men are from mars and women are from venus”, misunderstandings between differet engineering disciples soon occur
  • So. for a very good example: lets look back to when that RAF 617 sqn F35 plane decided – without asking its pilot first – that it wanted a new membership of the MGC (note 1) a couple of years back,
  • Someboidy else pointed out here on NL that there was no warning given by the plane’s software to the pilot.
  • Basically the plane’s computer software “forgot” to tell the pilot that the engine was only producing two-thirds of the required thrust.
  • A simple oversight by a coder – one who had simply not envisaged a situation ever occuring when the engine could be running at full power – however not actually producing full thrust (i.e. because of a blockage inside the inlet).
  • Fortunately Martin Baker ejector seats still work on biological intelligence : ie the human survival instinct means that one pulls the red handle, and then prays…..
  • =======
  • Furthemore, all-to-often-these days, we find that the “other parts” of the “whole project” engineering team will get lazy – and so quite-deliberately leave it to the software coder(s) to deal with “a few tricky remaiing and still unsolved challanges”.
  • This often called “the black box mentality” – thus expecting that some magic happening deep inside he black box will solve it
  • ….after all, as the ongoing public inquiry into the Horizon cmmputer system keeps hearing from witnesses – the computer is never wrong…..
  • However – due to the very simple fact the universal laws of physics have been completely unchanged since long before the computer was invented back in the 1940’s – that approach is inherently flawed
  • Key engineering design issues – like poor aerodynamics and dodgy hydrodynamics and very-wobbly avionics – cannot ever be solved by “tweeking software”
  • So, for another example. The Boeing team who were developing their rather-ill-fated 737-800 Max upgrade programme got very very lazy.
  • They should have, very much earlier in that plane’s development programme, have moved the two engines very slightly: so as to properly balance the plane’s overall weight distribution…..
  • …….and no prizes for guessing what happened next – soon after they handed the job over to the coders…

Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

MGC – Meditereanean Goldfish Club

Duker

Irans launchers are mobile….
pre-emptive wars are illegal anyway, only self defence allowed . These days its called the Putin gambit to pre-empt with attack first

AlexS

“pre-emptive wars are illegal “

Haha

Sean

The article is about ship ABM defence not land.

Land based ABM will be covered by ESSI.

Barry from Barrow.

Is that grey I can see in your beard ?

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Barry From Barrow

No,,,,…. because I am, and have always been, clean shaven!

regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Barry from Barrow.

Being always clean shaven is not normal but rather more normal nowadays, or so I see on most of the sites I visit.
How do you post comments in Bold Black ?
I struggle just posting normal stuff ?

Do you like being here ?

I love being here.

Sean

TLDNR

Duker

UK taxes as % of GDP is not 44% thats more like France

UK is actually around 35% of GDP says OECD
Try checking simple facts first
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/global-tax-revenues/revenue-statistics-france.pdf
 

AlexS

Search for Tax Freedom day, AdamSmith Institute, also note the part about borrowing.

And it is about to get worse.

The Political Economy is the biggest economical sector in UK, no wonder there is no more industrial or other wealth creating revolution in Britain. Do to this huge political power, a father should advise their children that they would be more successful if they get a job into political economy.

UK Taxpayers will fork out over £998.6bn to the Treasury this year, 44.06% of net national income

Tax Freedom Day falls on the 10th June.

Tax Freedom Day falls on the 10th June;This year, Brits are working 161 days solely to pay taxes, 4 days longer than last year;In 2019, before the pandemic, Tax Freedom Day was on May 22nd.UK Taxpayers will fork out over £998.6bn to the Treasury this year, 44.06% of net national income;Based on current Government taxation and spending plans, and OBR projections, the ASI expects Tax Freedom Day to hit June 22nd in 2028.Cost of Government Day, which factors in borrowing as well as taxes, is July 20th—the latest since the pandemic.

Last edited 1 month ago by AlexS
BB85

What is brutal is the when it comes to the budget in October the chancellor is expected to raid private sector pensions again for every penny she can rinse out of them while there will be no reform to final salary public sector pensions that are already worth two or three times the average private sector pension.
Would love to see some legislation that specifically targets Sir Kiers DPP platinum pension scheme, possibly the most generous in the entire UK.

Duker

Stick to real facts like OECD rather than your silly made up rubbish.

Just like I got my information about Rubymar from
Lloyds – who said Rubymar most definitely wasnt british- flying flag of Belize, a Marshall Islands company owned by a Lebanese National !

AlexS

Maybe you should learn to read the numbers from the link i posted and not the OECD pro governmental source. Which btw is not even 2024.

Duker

Its real comparison from OECD. Yours is just a US think tank written by amateurs , its complete garbage

BTW … what link ? Its just a cut and paste of terms you dont understand
Thirdly, we take into account depreciation and foreign investment earnings, as is standard around the world, measuring total taxes over net national income, not gross domestic product, so as to more closely approximate net wealth creation rather than economic activity…

gobbledygook of stringing buzz words together, its too absurd

AlexS

Second, we measure the total tax take. This includes indirect taxes (such as VAT and Corporation Tax) as well as direct taxes (Income Tax and National Insurance). Economists distinguish between legal and economic incidences (a fancy economist word for ‘burden.’) The legal incidence of Corporation Tax may fall on individual firms, but corporations are just legal constructs. In reality, Corporation Tax is paid by people, the debate between economists is to what extent it falls between consumers, shareholders and workers. (Our paper Corporation Tax: Who Pays had a crack at the answer.)

Thirdly, we take into account depreciation and foreign investment earnings, as is standard around the world, measuring total taxes over net national income, not gross domestic product, so as to more closely approximate net wealth creation rather than economic activity. 

Fourth, tax receipts and net national income statistics are regularly revised by the Office of National Statistics and we revise past Tax Freedom Days along with them. The latest version of Tax Freedom Day is the most accurate, as we annually revise statistics.

You just have to search for TaxFreedomDay

Duker

I found it by using the string of gobbledygook you copy and pasted.
Do you think because it used big words thats it sounds genuine?

Barry from Barrow.

It’s a good job you are here to correct everyone on their mistakes….. some of us might just get the wrong info and draw the wrong conclusions. Thanks for keeping things real.

Duker

I make many myself, and theres many people here with far more knowledge than me. Theres a few its advisable to fact check or they have outdated stuff.

Richard

Indeed. I’ve personally known one politician say, and have seen a couple quoted as having said, that there aren’t any votes in defence. It’s like insurance, as I’m sure that all on here realise, you don’t need it until it’s already too late.

There are roadworks near where I live, improving the intersection of a motorway and a major A-road. It has taken three years so far, and will take another year, to improve the junction ‘somewhat’. It must have cost hundreds of millions of pounds, spaffed up the wall in my opinion on an improvement that won’t be very obvious at all, and has caused chaos on local roads over the past year or so.

If there is money for this, and people tolerate it, why not defence? Poor leadership by politicians, not raising these issues with the electorate? Public indifference?

It staggers me that the present government are talking about raising the defence budget by a fraction of a percent when conditions allow, in the current situation, when it needs raising substantially merely to ensure that the kit that we we actually have is fit for purpose.

AlexS

If a country don’t teaches defence in schools where would it be?

Grant

These politicians though don’t really have the first clue what the average man or woman on the street thing. There are plenty of votes in defence. Most people believe the UK should have a world class military, they like the fact we have these high end capabilities and they would happily reduce elements of government spend (including welfare, the size of the state etc.)

Jon

According to YouGov polling this year, 53% of UK respondents think a new World War is likely within the next 5-10 years (roughly similar between major political parties). However, the last survey I read on finance was put out by the MOD: Would you support the Conservative government’s policy to increase defence spending to 2.5% by 2030, and only 42% said yes.

There was no discrimination as to why some didn’t support it. Some may have thought it too much, some too little too late, some wouldn’t trust the Tories to do anything. We know that it was massively more popular with Tory voters (65%) than Labour (28%), so I’m wondering if it was a party politically biased question.

Any ambiguity will be read by politicians to reinforce whatever they currently believe.

Irate Taxpayer (Peter)

Jon

YouGov was orginally founded by the very same bloke who was Liz Trusses next door neighbour.

For very short time, whilst she was living at No 10, he resided at No 11 Downing Street

So,experence clearly shows us that he is no good whatsoever with any type of figures!

Regards Peter (Irate Taxpayer)

Duker

Former website ConservativeHome was also started by the other founder.

Jon

A survey doesn’t need analysis by a corporate founder.

Congratulations on knowing that a failed ex-Chancellor was one of the founders of YouGov, but that bit of trivia is completely irrelevant to the result of a poll. You conclusion is also nonsense.

H_K

Interestingly last week it was confirmed that an Aster 15 also successfully intercepted a ballistic target in the Red Sea.

Along with the rollout of Aster 15 EC (« Enhanced Capability ») with double the range, this means that the French and Italian navies each potentially have 12 platforms today and soon 16+ with some anti-ballistic capability. Which suggests that the RN may have been a little too quick to ditch Aster 15 and a little short sighted in not equipping the T31s with a better air defense radar.

Last edited 1 month ago by H_K
Duker

A howitzer fires its shell ‘ballistically’ , so its stretching it to say Aster 15 is doing BM interception . The Red Sea missiles, mostly were just larger AA missiles themselves fired ‘ballistically’ as ‘local’ BM
Their real ballistic missiles are fired at Israel or Saudi targets or Gulf states ( who both had been attacking them).

https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/defence-news/houthis-unveil-russian-air-to-air-missiles-as-sams

Last edited 1 month ago by Duker
AlexS

Israel only attacked Houthis because Houthis attacked Israel.

Duker

I meant only the Saudis and Emiratis. The US has been attacking Yemen since Obama was President.

Sean

The US hasn’t been attacking Yemen, it’s been attacking the Houthi rebels in support of the legitimate Yemen government.

Duker

The President fled when there was an uprising, just like when ‘the legit’ president of Ukraine fled and was replaced.
The western capitals at the behest of Prince Mohammed bin Salam dont decide who is the legit government of anything

Your lack of understanding is again obvious to anyone who who follows the ME .
the President fled in 2014 after resigning but retracting that once in Riyadh , Obama earlier had his secret war in Yemen since 2010
https://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/11/opinion/bergen-yemen-drone-war/index.html

Sean

No it’s not “the western capitals” that decided who the legitimate government is, it’s the United Nations that decided.

Funny how you decry me following mainstream medium, then include a link to mainstream media to support your claims. That’s known as cognitive dissonance.

AlexS

It is not only the T31 that have a radar problem, T26 the RN version too.

Last edited 1 month ago by AlexS
Supportive Bloke

There were and are very good reasons for going down the A30 route with Sea Ceptor added.

It gives the Captain lots of options and more load out depth.

Nothing to stop RN using A15 in the system as most of it is the same missile with a different first stage.

AlexS

Btw 08 October, today will be the first Aster 30 B1 NT firing test.

Last edited 1 month ago by AlexS
Phillip Johnson

In a peer war environment are combat ships even the best way of dealing with higher end Ballistic Missiles?
To have a reasonable chance against Ballistic Missiles you have to be more or less under or at least in line with the missiles line of flight. You can forget a deflection shot at a Ballistic missile, the rates of target change are just too high.
That means, in the real world, a highly expensive, difficult to replace Guided Missile Destroyer would be required to remain in a predictable location on predictable courses for the duration leaving the vessel vulnerable to just about every other threat.
Fine, for now, if you are talking about backstopping Israel from a more or less safe distance but how practical against a peer?

Jon

I agree: it’s a bad idea for destroyers to be used in place of GBAD. However, given the government won’t pay for a proper land-based defence, if the T45s are all we have, should they be used to protect the UK or saved to defend against anti-ship ballistic missiles? It’s a tough choice.

Sean

The U.K. is a founding member of ESSI which will provide GBAD for the U.K.
This article, and the ABM capabilities of the T45, are for defending CSGs.

Duker

Well see in the next few months , whether the Tories unfunded ghost programs like ESSI will get the coup de grace.
The Germans seem to have gone ahead and ordered what they want for the different levels
T3 top level system
On September 28, 2023, Germany’s Bundestag signed a declaration of intent for a €4 billion deal with Israeli Aerospace Industries (IAI), a division of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), for its Arrow 3 weapon system jointly developed with the US’ Boeing. “

T2 middle level is Patriot which they have ( unlike UK) but will manufacture the missiles in country.

And for the T1 low level
‘ February, the Germans closed an initial contract for €600 million for up to 49 units of the Skyranger 30 with Rheinmetall, according to a press release. 
Shown below

300px-Boxer_Skyranger_30_ILA_2024_Schoenefeld_ILA45458_cropped1
Sean

Guess it depends how much Labour is prepared to
• redefine debt to borrow more, and
• redefine what tax is to screw more out of the populace ‘without increasing taxation’…

Duker

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/06/rishi-sunak-responsible-for-biggest-income-tax-rise-in-at-least-50-years

But ist OK when the Tories do it. Theres a level of unawareness thats beyond belief.

Sean

As per usual you show you’re only cable of thinking in simplistic black and white terms.
Do I approve of Labour hiking up tax? “No”.
Do I approve of Tories hiking up tax?
“No”.
Just because I disapprove of one side doesn’t mean I automatically approve of the other side.

Jon

ESSI “aims to foster cooperation in acquiring, maintaining, and repairing air and missile defence systems”. It “presents a framework for developing a shared capability”.

A framework is not a GBAD. You still have to buy the missiles!

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
AlexS

They are already paying for Arrow 3.

Sean

Try to keep up, Germany has already spent €4 billion on buying Arrow 3 for the ESSI. So ‘missiles bought’…
https://www.reuters.com/world/germany-israel-sign-formal-commitment-berlins-arrow-3-missile-buy-2023-09-28/

Jon

I was talking about UK GBAD. Not German. It’s possible that the UK would get substantial coverage from Arrow 3s based in Germany, but that would be up to the Germans. We probably also have some coverage from the US Aegis-Ashore SM-3s in Poland. It’s all a bit too partial and won’t cover missiles from ships coming in the wrong direction at all.

Last edited 1 month ago by Jon
Sean

The ESSI is a multinational initiative, not U.K. or German. Even without that, as NATO allies we routinely patrol and defend each other’s airspace.

“Wrong direction”?!? We’re talking long range missiles here, not guns on the Maginot Line that point in a single direction. You do know these missiles fire vertically upwards?…

Last edited 29 days ago by Sean
Duker

ESSI was German led and its a ground based air and ABM defence.
Whats combat air patrols got to do with it

With the Germans now already made their bed, its a dead program with only minnows left to pay for development ….. yeah right

Poland , France, Italy , Spain have different ideas

It was only a can kicking program for the UK anyway

Sean

The routine combat patrols demonstrate that we all ready routinely defend each others air-space. That’s the strength of an alliance; not something you Ruskies wouldn’t appreciate lacking allies of your own.

Incorrect, Poland is one of the 22 members of ESSI. Of the 3 others, France is never going to join anything that doesn’t see money spent with French defence manufacturers. That leaves Italy and Spain, that are waiting to see if ESSI is a success and worth upsetting the French over.

Jon

Germany is buying Arrow 3 missiles to site in Germany, not in the UK.

Ballistic missiles fired from Kaliningrad at London would pass over Germany. Ballistic missiles fired from submarines in the North Atlantic at London wouldn’t. From the perspective of ease of interception by missiles sited in Germany, the sub would be in the “wrong direction”.

The point I’ve been trying to make is that just being part of a framework or an initiative won’t stop the missiles from hitting you. If the UK wants ABM GBAD we will have to buy our own missiles as nobody else will do it for us.

Sean

Ballistic missiles don’t have to pass overhead of the interceptor missiles for them to be stopped, in most scenarios this is not the case. So ‘wrong direction’ is indeed a ridiculous argument.
If Germany detected ballistic missiles being fired at Europe, from the North Atlantic or Baltic, etc, it would attempt to intercept them, as would every other nation because:
• it would foolish to wait to see if they were specifically targeting Germany or not as it reduces the chances of interception
• ballistic missiles have been known to go off course
• a nuclear strike on Eire or the U.K. would see radioactive material blown over continental Europe (ie Germany) due to the prevailing winds from the Atlantic
• aside from Eire, Switzerland, and Austria, the whole of Europe is one big military alliance called NATO (and even the Swiss are joining ESSI)

That said, there shouldn’t be any freeloaders in NATO and everyone in it, including the U.K. should be contributing in buying ABM systems with which to defend the alliance.

Supportive Bloke

I agree.

But you are at least, developing, deploying and remedying a system that could be deployed on land?

AlexS

Ships can move so the missile systems can move, you can concentrate or disperse.

Besides there are also BM against ships.

Barry from Barrow.

Can’t see the point of spending untold Billions on anti BM stuff if we can’t even manage to get our ships out of port most o the time. Maybe a few systems could be bought to protect the 4 bases we actually have left ?

KiwiRob

Just wondering why the defense of Israel is a worthy mission and the defense of a largely defenseless civilian population in Gaza, the West Bank and now Lebanon is not?

AlexS

And i am wondering if your claimed worry is your real worry… why your text makes no reference to Hamas strategy or Israel care of their own civilians saving Palestinians.

You text reinforces Hamas strategy. So in fact you are pretty much okay with Palestinian civilian deaths because they is the sole strategy for western audience.

KiwiRob

That reads like you’re supporting genocide Alex.

Israel has proven they can launch pinpoint attacks on high value targets, they did that with Haniyeh in Tehran and with Nasrallah in Lebanon, yet in Gaza they are carpet bombing the city, less than 20% of it’s buildings remain.

I don’t see any difference between Hamas and the French Resistance or any of the other resistance movements during WW2, Palestinians are an occupied people fighting against an oppressive occupier.

Jon

Yup. Liken Israel to the Nazis. When in doubt use red-button words like genocide irrespective of whether they apply. You can always redefine the words to mean whatever suits you.

Gaza hadn’t been occupied for the last two decades. Ask yourself why didn’t the Gazans make use of that time to build good relationships with their neighbours? Why didn’t they create an economy independent of UNRWA? Why instead did they vote in a genocidal (I can warp words too) terrorist organisation as their leadership?

Netanyahu is not my cup of tea. I think that there is vengence-inspired building demolition going on in Gaza under the pretext of security. But Palestinians aren’t fighting for the freedom they could have had many times over by saying the word yes, they are fighting for hatred.

KiwiRob

Its very easy to liken the Israeli govt to the Nazi govt because they both read the same playbook, you like many are giving Israel a free pass to do what they want. Nobody is holding them back. We should all be disgusted at our governments.

To say Gaza wasn’t occupied isn’t correct. Israel controlled there food, water and electricity, they controlled who could enter and exit, they would not allow Gaza to build an airport, nor were they allowed to built a port, they were not allowed to control there own EEZ, nor were they allowed to extract the oil and gas they lies within it. They were not allowed like the Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to collect rain water. They weren’t occupied because they were kept locked into a cage they couldn’t exit.

Lets take a look at the West Bank, this year has seen the highest number of land grabs and home demolitions for 2 decades. There are now 700000 Israelis living in the West Bank, this number is increasing by the month. How can you have a 2 state solution when one half is an open air prison and the other half is being taken over piece by piece, soon the West Bank Palestinians will have less land inn the West Bank then the illegal settler from Israel.

Jon

Once again you use words wrongly. Occupied means occupied not controlled by. As for the rest are you forgetting that Gaza has a border with Egypt? If you could pay the money for a visa you could leave pretty easily according to one Gazan I spoke to. And are you ignoring the tens of thousands of Gazans who worked in Israel on a daily basis? Are you asking yourself how, if Israel controlled all imports, where the rockets Hamas fired came from? Is Iran inside that mythical cage?

The rainwater thing is nonsense. Control of water infrastructure in Gaza came substantially under the control of the Palestinian Authority in 1995 and wholly since 2005, subsequently taken over Hamas. Over 90% of Gazan drinking water comes from desalination plants, mostly private, or at least did before last October. 6% came from Israel, the rest from the local aquifer, which was substantially contaminated with saline by the overpumping of local residents. According to Algemeiner Zeitung the Gazan Water Authority lost over 40% of available water in leaks.

I concede that the situation in the West Bank seems dire in terms of settler attacks and the Netanyahu government should be admonished if half of what we hear reported about that is true (half may be a realistic guesstimate). Nevertheless you are blowing up your claims out of all proportion. There is a higher proportion of Arabs in Israel proper than that of Jews in the West Bank. A two-state solution may well require some settler evictions as Israel did in Gaza. However, the longer the Palestinians say no, the worse their final deal will be. Had they agreed partition in 1947/48, declared independence and fought for it alongside Israel, they would have gained a large amount of land and could have had 75 years of peace.

Last edited 27 days ago by Jon
AlexS

The only genocide was in 07 October in which the Majority of man, women children and even pets were murdered in cold blood by Palestinians. So do you support Genocide?

You might also have to explain why life expectancy at 70 years can a genocide occurring…

Maybe you should explain when French resistance operations were dominated by murdering civilians and attacking civilians.
Regardless of that dishonest attack against French Resistance can i infer from your support targeting of civilians as main strategy?
Does that works for both sides or for you only your side can do it?

You also support use of civilian structures for combat. So it appears that you don’t care for the other side civilians neither your side. I guess with that ethics understandably you support Hamas and the palestinian cult of death.

Last edited 1 month ago by AlexS
Duker
Barry Larking

King Hussein of Jordan drove the P.L.O. out of his country with ‘extreme prejudice’ in 1970. Read this and you will begin to understand perhaps why the Arab states are not jumping to the ‘Palestinian’ side any time soon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_September

Last edited 30 days ago by Barry Larking
AlexS

As usual Duker you are a product of The Guardian and BBC “journalism”.

Sabra and Chatila massacre was made because Palestinians murdered Elie Hobeika fiancee in Damour massacre.

Do you ever read about Damour massacre in Guardian or BBC?

And as usual journalist outrage is selective.
Do you know who the Syrians put later as minister of Palestinians refugees in Lebanon as warning to Palestinians to behave? Elie Hobeika…
Do you remember any scandal from your leftist media friends? No.

It is like the leftist media hiding Communist linked union sabotage of British defence industry until June 1941.

There is a book by Robert Hadem, the Elie Hobeika bodyguard that tells a story that you don’t want to read.

KiwiRob

You’re kidding, you honestly believe 1100 dead (almost half were IDF, BET or Police) constitutes a genocide, when 42000 plus doesn’t, you need you head read You’re also ignoring that up to the 6th October 2023 recorded the highest numbers of death of children in Gaza for decades.

Targeting civilians is the main strategy for the Israeli govt and the IDF, this is no longer in doubt, what is seriously sickening is western govts know this yet continue to supply Israel with the means to continue and provide them with diplomatic cover to continue the onslaught. There will be no Palestinians left in Gaza by the time this is over, that’s ethnic cleansing, which is considered genocide.

Jon

We need to let words mean what they mean, and not redefine them for political ends. Neither Hamas nor Israel have committed genocide as the layman understands the term. The UN redefined it to include just the intention, which make the word next to useless.

If there are no Palestinians in Gaza at the end of the current fight, that would indeed be ethnic cleansing, but not necessarily genocide. You could easily argue that Israel committed ethnic cleansing in Gaza with the force removal of Jews in 2005, but nobody would argue genocide. You could say that those Jews were Johnnie-come-latelies having residence only dating back to 1967, and you’d be right. You then need to ask why there were so few Jews in Gaza and the West Bank in 1967, and the answer is ethnic cleansing by Egypt and Jordan between 1948 and 1967. There’s been a lot of it about and still no genocide.

KiwiRob

Sorry not sorry I’m going with the UN’s definition. As far as we’ve seen to date Israel has ticked off 4 of the 5 points. Point 5 is iffy. Nobody has any issue saying Russia is committing genocide in Ukraine, where the population is 20 times higher and the civilian death toll is about 25% of deaths in Gaza, yet certain people have a problem saying Israel is doing much worse.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  1. Killing members of the group;
  2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The population of Palestine before the first Aaliyah in 1882 was 24k Jews, 276k Palestinians, in 1947 it was 630k Jews, 1.3m Palestinians, in 1948 it was 717k Jews and 156k Palestinians. The removal of 17k Jews from the West Bank and 2k from Gaza in 1948 pales into insignificance compared to the removal of nearly 1.2m Palestinians in 1948. You have just proven yet again that a Jewish life is apparently worth more than a Palestinian life. You obviously believe all there propaganda and are unable to thing for yourself.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jewish-and-non-jewish-population-of-israel-palestine-1517-present

Jon

By that definition any terrorist bombing that has ever killed two people with intent to target an ethnic group is a genocide. The British government commits genocide of the British people on a regular basis whether that’s in terms of mental cruelty or capping child benefits. As I said before, it makes the word useless and devalues what people would agree is a real genocide.

I’m not going to discuss the rest, because although it’s really interesting, both historically and ethically, I don’t have the time right now. Sorry, but you are opening up a whole different can of worms. Perhaps we can talk when this comes around again, as I’m sure it will. Thinking for myself is easy; getting hold of unbiased data, impossible.

Last edited 27 days ago by Jon
AlexS

So for you the fact that more than half million +500000 of Germans were killed from allied bombs was a genocide.

For comparison 60000 British were killed in the Blitz.

Yes 7 October it was a Palestinian genocide of Jews.
Withing geographic limits of Palestinian agression in that day most of people were dead. Everyone in cold blood.
.
Within Israel defence most Palestinians are alive.
Israel would have killed more than half million Palestinians if ever attack would have killed 10 persons.

It is telling that for you no Hamas was killed , only Palestinians.

Barry Larking

Alternatively, demonstrate to those bad actors that we, the west, will wallop them back longer and harder. The U.S. tied Israel’s hands here, let us never forget.

Duker

Iran in size comparison, stretch’s from near London to Athens. Its a huge country.

The Saudi oilfields are few 100km from Iran.
The oil disruption if Iran fights back would be massive . Do you have a bicycle ?

Barry Larking

Size does not matter – as the Iranian’s will find out soon enough.

I recall cars being pushed along the streets of London during Suez. No, I don’t have a bicycle.

Leaving aside the legion of Aírfix modellers with their boy’s toy buying spree fantasies Blighty cannot afford, let’s have a grown up discussion with the Mad Mullahs. It would go like this: If you dare you know what comes next. My guess is China would lean on them faster than you could say ‘chopsticks’.

Duker

EU/Britain doesnt have a defence treaty with Israel. Their wars are of no concern to Britain , despite the intervention many months back.
Your boys own comic guide to diplomacy is best left on the shelf when you received then 60 years ago

207326619611
AlexS

So do you think imperial Islamism do not matter to you..Ah!

Did you read the Iranian Islamic constitution? You matter to them.

KiwiRob

The West is on its way out, it’s hypocritical management of the world order over the past 2 decades is disastrous, the East and the Global South have had enough.The US dollar is slowly and surely losing it place as the world reserve, the sanctions against Russia have largely failed, the money grab the EU instigated on Russia’s reserves was a massive wake-up to all those who are not part of the Western Club, and has caused flight from the USD and EUR into gold and other assets which can’t be easily taken away, the BRICS payment system is nearly up and running, once this is working the West will no longer know who is trading with who and what they are buying from where.

Sean

Pretty much all propaganda and zero factual basis.

Whale Island Zookeeper

You won’t get much support for that view here. Too many here s-u-ck the sausage of the MSM and think government press releases have been passed down from the Almighty.

When I look at Russia at the moment I hardly see a country suffering. The Rouble is strengthening backed by gold and commodities. They pay less for a gallon than we pay for a litre; whereas Germany are buying Russian LNG at over twice the price they were buying pipeline class. They have an industrial base that makes everything they need and they have access to China too. They can feed themselves too.

The West has gone the other way.

It is one thing to be deluded over the war in the Ukraine. But another not to accept hard economic facts.

Duker

Yes. Everyone thinks Hitler invaded for the oil. It wasnt that in 1941, ( but a year later in Fall Blau) but to secure food as Hitler had personal experience of the near starvation in 1918.

Romania and Pannoian basin had far more surplus oil and supplied Germany via Danube barges. In those days before long distance pipelines Soviets only had a lesser surplus and also used Volga river barges- which went via Stalingrad.

Whale Island Zookeeper

Yes. But there is a range of indicators.

Take national debt. Ours is now equal to the GDP. And that debt is held mostly in US Dollars by mostly non-UK entities. It is now our beyond management.

Russian debt is somewhere around 17%-ish. It is mostly held in Roubles by Russian entities. And it is manageable by the Russian government.

Duker

Thats interesting. That would be like the Japanese national debt, its colossal as share of GDP (218%) , but its mostly held in Japan
https://www.statista.com/statistics/756192/japanese-government-bonds-by-type-of-holders/

AlexS

The Marxist think everything is mercantilist…
Hitler invaded by his ideology and nationalist power games and an expectation of an easy victory.
Nazis were not even maximizing Ploesti oil fields and refineries.

AlexS

Yes it is hypocritical by your progressive west side that wants an autocratic discretionary power like Russians,

Of course when you are loosing a war you turn pacifist like Communists tried to defend the Nazis until 1941.
And when you don’t control the institutions and can censor you defend free speech, but when you control them like US, UK universities, your controlled institutions are only for people that think like you.

Duker

Very apt for ABM destroyers, it was only a few months back when I said it was on target to happen at some stage

The nay sayers of course can now eat their hats

https://www.twz.com/news-features/navy-just-demonstrated-reloading-vertical-launch-system-at-sea-for-the-first-time

USS Chosin (CG-65), a Ticonderoga class cruiser, came alongside Military Sealift Command’s dry cargo ship USNS Washington Chambers (T-AKE 11) and transferred an empty VLS weapon container to the cruiser while sailing off the southern California coast on October 11th.

John

Don’t know if anyone is still following this stale discussion, but it does bring to mind we need to change the name back to Save the Royal Navy, it is obviously not yet saved and needs more than a lookout.

Cheers

John