Defence: failures all round

By Richard North - March 24, 2026

The Times is having fun at expense of the odious Starmer (even if it is like shooting fish in a barrel), over his questioning during yesterday’s liaison committee hearing on whether the UK has any defences against ballistic missiles fired at us from either Russia or Iran.

Under the heading: “Are we safe from Iranian missiles? Best not ask the PM”, the paper goes on to remark that Starmer gave parliamentarians on the liaison committee “another masterclass in not really saying anything”.

Writer Tom Peck has Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, a Labour MP who is chair of the defence select committee, asking a straightforward question about the UK’s complete lack of defence from such things as intercontinental ballistic missiles, in terms: “The British public will be worried for our safety. Why do we have no way of defending ourselves from ballistic missiles?”.

This is a loose summary though. Dhesi prefaced his question by telling the prime minister: “Let me talk about the Integrated Air Defence Missile Systems or the lack of thereof”. He went on to say: “We saw Iran launch a plethora of missiles and drones …”, then asking, “If Iran or another adversary such as Russian were to launch ballistic missiles towards the UK, how would we defend ourselves?”.

It was a good question, as far as it went, but the full answer, writes Peck “is untranscribable”. It began with, he added: “We constantly assess this” and ended, several weeks later, with, “Our military and security personnel are working 24/7”.

Actually, it is transcribable – I guess Peck was just too lazy to do the work. From the video we see Starmer saying: “As you will appreciate, we keep this under constant review, and I can assure the committee of the assessments that we carry out on a constant basis”.

The PM then says: “The two missiles didn’t reach Diego Garcia, but we’re continually monitoring it”. “On the question of Integrated Air Defence Systems”, he adds, (using the correct terminology, which Dhesi didn’t), this is hugely important”, he says.

Abruptly, he then rapidly changes tack, saying: “Just in relation to our Gulf partners, to update the committee, we’ve embedded a UK airspace battle management specialist in the military command in the region, and we’re working with industry to distribute air defence missiles to Gulf partners. We’re deploying short-range air defence systems to Bahrain at speed – this was an issue that came up as a matter of some urgency over the course of the weekend – we’re doing the same with Saudi Arabia”.

This brought Dhesi back into the fray, saying, “It’s good what we’re doing with allies, but I think the British public will rightly be concerned about our own safety because – forget the Golden Dome or Platinum Dome or any other dome – we have not made any such investment in our own defence and would you not agree that the public will be concerned about the ability of Russia or other adversaries to launch ballistic missiles and we have no way of defending ourselves?”.

Starmer, on the face of it, has the opportunity of offer reassurance, but what he does say is: “Look, we constantly assess this and we do have effective ways of defending ourselves and I don’t want to raise levels of public anxiety, they’re anxious about what they already seeing on their television screens, they’re anxious about the impact it’ll have on them, particularly economically in their households, and I don’t want to raise their levels of anxiety. I can tell you our military personnel, our security and intelligence services are literally working 24/7 to keep us safe and are doing a very good job in that regard”.

Perceptive readers will have noticed that Starmer makes no attempt to contradict Dhesi’s assertion that “we have no way of defending ourselves”, other then the bland, non-specific claim that: “we do have effective ways of defending ourselves” which, if this is meant to relate to our own armed forces, is an absolute lie. We, in terms of UK capabilities, are completely without any means of defending ourselves.

While Tom Peck in his commentary makes great sport of this, he doesn’t note that Dhesi doesn’t challenge the lie, much less ask why the UK is so vulnerable. Dhesi simply moves on to ask when the “fabled” defence investment plan is to be published, thereby letting Starmer off the hook.

This little episode, therefore, not only identifies the failure of the government (or successive governments) to perform the basic function of protecting the public, it illustrates the protracted and continuing failure of MPs adequately to scrutinise governments and to get to grips with the causes of their many failures.

Perversely, in terms of blame, if there was one person in that committee room who was entirely (or mostly) without sin, it was Starmer himself. Since preceding governments had done nothing to secure an effective ballistic missile defence system and the procurement cycle for new systems is measured in decades, there is nothing Starmer could have done as prime minister to enhance our protection from UK resources.

As I remarked in my earlier piece, though, there was (and is) a form of defence available to the UK in the form of the US Aegis system combined with SM-3 Block IIA missiles, augmented with the SM-6 (RIM-174 Standard Missile-6). If these assets were positioned in the right places, interception of Iranian missiles could almost be guaranteed.

The crucial point, though, is that with a little more forethought, the UK could have had that capability, with the opportunity lost in 1999, when the UK pulled out of the multi-national Horizon frigate project and sought to procure its own seaborne air-defence capabilities.

At that point, the UK did have the option of buying in the US Aegis system, which was actually the path chosen by the Australian Navy for their three Hobart-class air warfare destroyers.

And the Australians were not alone. In addition to the US – which is the primary operator – the Republic of Korea Navy operates the system in its Sejong the Great-class destroyers. The Spanish Navy uses the system on its Álvaro de Bazán-class (F100) frigates. The Royal Norwegian Navy operates Aegis equipment in the Fridtjof Nansen-class frigates, and, for the future, several other nations have plans to acquire or are currently building Aegis-equipped ships:

These include the Royal Canadian Navy which is building River-class destroyers (Canadian Surface Combatant), which will make it the owner of the world’s second-largest Aegis fleet upon completion, and the German Navy, which is planning to equip its future Type F127 class frigates with the Aegis system.

The UK, however – as I recorded – decided to go it alone with the hull, propulsion and radar systems which generated the Type 45 destroyers. Contracts were issued in the year 2000, and the ships were equipped with the Franco-Italian Aster missile, which became the Sea Viper in Royal Navy use.

This option was undoubtedly strongly influenced by then premier Tony Blair who was particularly enthusiastic about European defence co-operation, which led to the European Sylver missile launch system being adopted instead of the far more capable US Mk 41 system, limiting the Royal Navy to the Aster.

If there is one man responsible for the current lack of protection, therefore, it is Tony Blair, aided and abetted by his defence secretary Geoff Hoon, who was a firm supporter of European defence cooperation. In 2000, just as the Type 45 was being signed off, he was a key figure in the development of the European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP), following the 1998 St Malo agreement between the UK and France.

That choice has left the UK with a very basic and limited ballistic missile defence (BMD) capability, with no prospect of enhancement, now or in the foreseeable future, although there is talk of the projected Type 45 replacement – the Type 83 – being fitted with Mk 41 silos which will provide an SM-3 and SM-6 launch capability. That, however, is unlikely to happen before the mid-to-late 2030s – more than 10 years from now.

This, though, does not get the Tories off the hook. In 2009, President Obama announced that the United States would pursue a “Phased Adaptive Approach” to missile defence in Europe, a programme which was formally adopted by Nato in 2010, at the Lisbon Summit – the first major Nato event attended by the new premier David Cameron.

In his statement to the Commons, Cameron actually announced that Nato had agreed to develop a new ballistic missile defence system for Europe.

This, he said, “will help to protect the UK and our other European allies from the growing threat from countries such as Iran that are developing ballistic missiles”, telling the House that it would be in place by the end of the decade, paid for within Nato’s existing resources. The UK contributed its early warning system at RAF Fylingdales but there was to be no missile system on UK soil.

But, as we know, there were furnished two ground installations of Aegis Ashore, one in Romania and the other in Poland, while four US Aegis destroyers were permanently based in Spain as part of the commitment.

As it stands, Starmer could have directly alluded to this programme. It is unlikely, though, that the Romanian sites could provide much protection against high-apogee Iranian missiles, as it is only equipped with SM-3 Block IB, but the more modern Polish site with its Block IIA variant could probably have made a successful intercept.

To be absolutely sure of a kill, though, we would need an Aegis destroyer in the northern end of the Adriatic, ready for a mid-course interception, and another destroyer in the Channel armed with SM-6 missiles, to execute a terminal phase intercept if previous attempts had failed.

That, though, probably would not fit Starmer’s narrative – having to ask Trump for help after being grudging with his own support – so perhaps he isn’t so innocent after all.

For all that, when it comes to missile defence, the UK (and Europe) have no sovereign capabilities and we are entirely reliant on the goodwill of the United States. MPs like Dhesi should be asking why we are not making better use of this provision, and the media should be asking questions about why it is not in place.