>>513680600
>So, although the Land Ceptor missile is very capable, defence planning assumptions (DPAs) were that they would not need to be used in a serious way, commensurate with the threat.
>However, as the Russian invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated (as has the series of Iranian attacks on Israel), significantly larger stockpiles are required against a more capable enemy.
>Is the UK vulnerable to missile attack?
>In short, yes. Although the Land Ceptor missile does provide an excellent point-defence capability, it is not an effective counter to ballistic or hypersonic missiles - the Sea Viper mounted on Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyers using the Aster 30 missile has that capability.
>In the Cold War, the UK had Bloodhound missiles deployed around the UK to provide a missile defence capability, but as the perceived risks to the UK abated following the collapse of the Soviet Union, UK missile defence fell down the priorities for the MoD.
>Although the radar based at RAF Fylingdales forms part of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS), and can detect incoming threats, the UK no longer has an effective interceptor to protect critical national infrastructure.
>Instead, the UK relies on the layered defences of European allies to act as a deterrence against attack.
>In the near term, this timely order for Land Ceptor missiles doubles the British Army's tactical capability.
>However, as the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East have demonstrated, ballistic (and increasingly hypersonic) missiles are being produced in increasing quantity - and quality.
>Without significant (and rapid) investment, this critical gap in national military capability leaves the UK vulnerable to attack.
https://news.sky.com/story/britain-is-buying-new-air-defence-missile-systems-but-can-they-protect-us-13415831