Introduction
Britain has been wilfully left exposed by Labour to the threat of Russian missile attacks.
Global Forecaster has been warning for five years that Britain is dangerously exposed to missile attack. Our Defend Britain campaign has highlighted how the UK—Putin’s number-one enemy in NATO—has left itself effectively defenceless and in urgent need of a national missile shield. As the prospect of war with Russia looms, the penny may finally be starting to drop.
1.0 The Wake Up Call
Britain is effectively undefended. That is the stark conclusion of a report published on Tuesday by MPs on the Parliamentary Defence Committee, laying bare the country’s acute vulnerability in the event of war. Despite Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—and repeated warnings that Britain could be next in the Kremlin’s sights—the report claims the UK “lacks a plan for defending the homeland.”
It is a direct rebuke to the irresponsible Labour government, which it accuses of moving at a “glacial” pace towards its pledge to raise defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP by 2035. If this sounds alarmist, that is precisely the point. As Professor Peter Roberts of the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) argued,“ it is long past time to stop pretending that 'everything will be fine.”
“There has been no political will to be honest with the public and say, ‘We’re not going to stop missiles coming and hitting you. Some of you are going to die, hospitals will go under, and you may be without food, water, sewers and electricity,’ Prof Roberts told the committee earlier this year.
“We have not been brave enough to admit that what happens in Israel every day is a realistic scenario for London, Manchester, Edinburgh, or Inverness tomorrow. The enemy has both the capability and the intent—and is already considering it.”
Finally, the press might be waking up to the great betrayal, with articles like the recent Telegraph piece, 'The terrifying lack of missile defence leaves Britain open to attack ,'
2.0 The Russian Threat
The missile threat to the UK has “proliferated enormously” since the end of the Cold War. Russia now possesses everything from hypersonic missiles travelling at Mach 15 to mass fleets of long-range drones and smaller arsenals of submarine-launched missiles lurking off Britain’s coast. On a first and second strike, Russia could and would hide missiles and drones inside a civilian container ship in the Channel and use them to cripple gas terminals or key infrastructure. As its conduct in Ukraine has shown, today’s Kremlin is not targeting military facilities alone—it is targeting the civilian infrastructure that would sap Britain’s will to fight. The Russians would aim to hit the electricity that supplies London… the banking sector and the natural gas port through which all our seven-day supply of gas arrives,” Roberts warned. “This is what the Kremlin is going after: the political will and freedom to act.”Britain’s hawkish stance on Ukraine—a stance that helped stiffen Europe’s spine—has made the UK a particular irritant to Moscow. On that basis alone, the GF estimate is A £40-50bn cost of rebuilding Britain’s missile and air defences, which is now a national imperative, as it was in 1936 when Germany built its massed air force. Crucially, Prof Roberts warns Britons not to assume that Russia would choose to intimidate European neighbours before targeting the UK.
3.0 No UK Missile Defences-Limited Drone Protection
Unlike Poland, Romania and other frontline NATO states, Britain has no modern surface-to-air missile defences. These systems give those nations a “hugely credible integrated air and missile defence capability.” By comparison, the UK has “next to nothing.” Nor does Britain possess an equivalent to Israel’s Iron Dome, designed to protect against short-range rockets and drones. As an island nation, the UK long assumed such threats were unlikely and consequently failed to prepare. As for air defences against slow-moving Russian drones that act as the backbone of the attacks against Ukraine, we only keep four alert fighters ready at any time!
4.0 Only Type 45s—and Too Few of Them, and they are Unreliable
Britain’s central missile defence relies on the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers, equipped with the state-of-the-art Sea Viper system using Aster 30 missiles. Capable of hitting a cricket-ball-sized object travelling at Mach 3, Sea Viper can intercept drones and jets, but only minimal ballistic threats. During the 2012 Olympics, a Type 45 was stationed in the Thames Estuary to protect London. The problem: Britain has only six Type 45s. Initially, 12 were planned, but the post-9/11 belief that the primary threat came from terrorism—not Russia—led to the programme being cut in half. Worse still, only a fraction of the fleet is operational at any one time. As of August, just three Type 45s were seaworthy; in 2021, ministers admitted that only one was fully functional—a situation MPs branded “operationally unacceptable.”
5.0 The Wargame: Britain Has No Clothes
These weaknesses were laid bare in The Wargame, a recent Sky News simulation that tasked real former ministers—including Sir Ben Wallace and Jack Straw—with responding to a Russian attack. Participants were horrified to discover that, with only one Type 45 at sea, they would have to choose between defending Whitehall or critical military assets. “We would have a Hobson’s choice: protect London or other cities, or protect a naval taskforce,” observed Gerry Northwood, a former Royal Navy captain. “We’d have very difficult choices, with very few assets to distribute.”
6.0 Russian Missiles From the Sea
Any Russian missiles launched from Russian territory would cross NATO airspace first, potentially being intercepted by European allies. The greater threat to the UK would come from rockets launched by strategic bombers or submarines closer to British shores from the north and west. After an initial strike, Russia would lose the element of surprise and risk its bombers or submarines being hunted by NATO forces. For that reason, analysts believe Moscow might focus on very high-value military targets rather than civilian infrastructure—at least initially. Russia would almost certainly also use its new Oreshnik intermediate-range missiles, deployed last year against the Ukrainian city of Dnipro. For now, supplies are limited—but increased production could make them a significant threat.
7.0 No Conventional Strike Capability-Britain is Toothless
To make matters worse, Britain has no converntional retaliatory capability to strike back, as we do not have any long-range missiles and our F-35s are not equipped with stand-off missiles, which means that Putin could attack with impunity unless the Americans joined in.
8.0 What Britain Desperately Needs-Yesterday
The British people need to understand that, first, the Conservatives, and now Labour under Starmer, have wilfully left Britain undefended because they have refused to face the reality that we are already in a state of conflict with Russia. If Britain can wake up and regain its national resolve, it will urgently need the following:
As part of this summer’s Strategic Defence Review, the Government plans to acquire a few rather than the many needed of
- Additional Sky Sabre air-defence launchers – mobile, point-defence systems to protect key sites from aircraft and drones
- More Wedgetail early-warning aircraft – improving detection of incoming threats
Immediate upgrades are needed to the limited RN capabilities in service.
- Keep the Type 23s with Sea Ceptor missiles in service, and those that are in mothballs.
- Equip the UK carriers with Aster missiles for self and area defence.
But Britain needs far more, as we need an Iron Dome
- Many more alert Fighters (Typhoons and F-35s) should be ready to launch and intercept the first Russian missile strike.
- At least 12 SAMP/T area-defence missile batteries firing the new Aster 30 B1NT, which should be installed in the Type 45s to replace the Block 1s. Then, as soon as possible, the 30 Block 2 BMD should be bought and put into service.
- Four US THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) batteries to counter Oreshnik intermediate-range missiles.
- Build the Type 83 Air Defence Destroyer fleet along with its arsenal ships as a national imperative
Both long-range systems could be integrated into the European Sky Shield Initiative, effectively covering its northern and western flanks.
- Strengthen naval defences to keep Russian submarines north of the Iceland-Faroes gap
The cost for Britain to build an emergency air-defence system would be substantial—around £40–50 billion, and not as a one-off expense. As Prof Roberts notes, adversaries continually develop missiles that are faster, stealthier and more manoeuvrable. Defence must evolve continuously.
But imagine if Chamberlain had decided not to invest in the world’s first integrated air-defence system in 1937. The Battle of Britain would not have been our finest hour—it would have been a wipe-out. So the people of Britain and their leaders must decide: do they want a wipeout or a fighting chance of survival?
9.0 What Can You Do?
Subscribe to Global Forecaster, get educated and write to your MPs to demand that they act to defend Britain with an emergency defence program
If YOU want peace, then Stand Tall and Go Gold, so you can become informed and have a say in our future.
© David Murrin 2025. All images courtesy of Getty Images. |