Why doesn't the UK have any SAM's other than Rapier?
 

I recently had cause to peruse the general number and types of SAMs deployed in area if one were flying into Tel Aviv from the UK. It's quite a long list.

It suddenly occurred to me - how come the UK has only a few Rapiers when it's one of the more generally tooled up military powers? It seems odd to have both USAF and RAF air defence interceptors and fighters sustained for sixty years now but hardly anything in the way of SAM's.

Obviously there is a good reason and it's not some huge bureaucratic oversight... But what is the reason please?


WWW

Lack of £££££. There was some talk of a Patriot purchase after GWI, but it came to naught.

WWW

We also have Starburst, which is a develop ent of Javelin: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starburst_(missile)

Then there is Startreak as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starstreak

Then Rapier will be replaced with CAMM soon as well: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAMM_(missile_family)

So what's your point?

LJ

I suspect the OP is comparing UK to other nations where either capitals or other key locations are defended by a SAM belt or why given the potential threat from LRA or even terrorism, what makes the UK risk/threat assessment different to other nations?

An interesting question WWW.

I remember being shown Bloodhounds at West Raynham - they didn't seem like a half measure! When were they retired?

RAF Bloodhound Mk 2 SAMs were withdrawn from service in 1991.

You know exactly what his point is LJ.

Didn't we park a T45 in the Thames during the Olympics just because of his point?

S-D

short ranged local area, non theatre, no oversight of the "big picture" imo

plugged in too ;) or not as you were unusually wrong. yeah right.

Thank you for linking to CAMM that's the sort of capability I couldn't understand us not having. I wondered if the reason we didn't have much more than a token Bloodhound force in the Cold War was because we assumed the Soviets would use ICBM's not stand off or conventional strike against the UK mainland?

I would still have thought that post 9/11 it might have been desirable to have had a more 'theatre' SAM system in the UK. Those precious few Typhoons can't be everywhere at the same time.


WWW

No. We parked HMS Ocean (LPH) in the Thames carrying naval Lynx for defence against waterborne threats and Army Lynx (with RAF Regiment(?) snipers) for dealing with light aircraft threats. She also had things like landing craft and command/communications capabilities.

It was odd looking down from Greenwich Park and seeing her there.

Answering the question - isn't the issue down to the conundrum associated with who operates GBAD systems versus who pays the bill..........

we've kicked this around in the Falklands thread a few times - and TBH a medium range anti-air missile makes a lot more sense there rather than in mainland UK

I guess that any posible threat would have to traverse Europe or come via N Cape and both are already well policed. I doubt any UK polictican woiuld contenance shooting down a possibly rogue airliner without sending up a Typhoon to intercept first

Basic lack of a multiple threat where we need to engage with interceptors, medium range SAM and Shorad.

Medium range essentially static SAM are still point defence weapons. We limited deployment to protect our nuclear bomber assets in UK, Cyprus and Germany. We also had Bloodhound in Singapore :).

With more money we could have deployed SAM around other key installations and cities. The USA had lots of Nike sites but these did not give blanket coverage. SAM belts cost $$$$$ and were really limited to the USSR border and the central region.

Given the small size of our land/air forces the cost of modern long/medium range SAM would be wholly disproportionate to the threat.

Given the burden already put on a BG by a HVM Troop, to allocate anything bigger at the BG level is not feasible. And as the threat most likely to a BG is likely to be AH, I'd say HVM is a fairly potent threat.

Starstreak was deployed during the Olympics to the top of small buildings in London. As it is a 'hittile' (ie. No big warhead) then it was deemed acceptable to fire it in a densely populated area if it was needed. However, Heathrow Harry has the main point nailed. In peacetime you are going to need to VID your target before anyone is going to give you engagement authority - be that a Typhoon driver or a helicopter with a sniper. Even then, if inside the M25 there is a thought that you may as well just let it hit rather than schwack it and let the debris fall randomly over the ~8M populace. Depending on the professionalism of the suicide pilot then it may well miss any strategically critical assets anyway!

LJ

Simple....... $$$$$$$$$

PS. Buying missiles for defence against ballistic missiles is a wholly different argument. At present mainland UK is only really threatened by Russia, but if this changes to some of the more rogue states in the future then we may need to think again...

http://www.arcade-museum.com/images/...8124213852.png

I expect the answer is money. However, I do detect an institutional dislike to 'MSAM'. In Germany in Cold War and now for deployed ops, we opt to rely on allies to provide this capability (including its BMD element) in return for UK capabilities in other areas.

Amongst close allies with such capability are NLD, DEU, FRA, and ITA. Somehow they all see need, while we don't.

Regards
Batco

glad rag yes you're right, thank you. No idea where that thought came from.

S-D