British Military Wargamers Panic About Lack of Anti-Ait Assets in the UK.

 In this report, British Military wargamers are reported to have wargamed an attack on the UK by Russian missiles. 

It didn't look good. 

I blogged about this months ago. 

Not since the Bloodhound of the 50s/60s have we had a dedicated, fixed Surface-To-Air missile defence system in place. The MOD decided the Navy could take over the role of air defence and initially it looks like a good idea: station a couple of air defence Destroyers around the UK coast and their umbrella of protection should extend over most of the UK. 

But then there's the fact that we reduced the number of advanced air defence destroyers over time. We now have six Type 45 destroyers in total. One each would be deployed to support the aircraft carriers, so we're down to four. Then at least one, maybe two would be in dry dock for refit. So that's two Type 45s available to protect the UK which renders them unable to protect Royal Navy assets. 

What about other Royal Navy air defence assets? What are the Army using?

We could rely on the Type 23 Frigates, the newest of which were built over 20 years ago. And we only have eight in service. The Type 23 does not major in the anti-air role.

The Sea Ceptor missiles used on the Royal Navy ships have a land-based version called unimaginatively "Land-Ceptor".

The Sea Ceptor and Land Ceptor missiles are not designed to intercept ballistic missiles. So really, they are only of use against cruise missiles and aircraft. 

So it's back to the Type 45s and their Sea Viper/Aster 30 missiles that do have the capability to intercept ballistic missiles.. The Type 45 carries up to 48 missiles in a vertical rack. The Aster missiles used in the Sea Viper have two types, the 15 and the 30. The numbers refer to the range of the missiles. The maximum range of the Aster 30 is 85 miles. 

The Type 45 carries a mix of the long and short range versions. The actual mix would vary. But let's just concentrate on the range issue for now, because that's not really an issue: range is.

The Aster 30s range of 85 miles certainly isn't enough to cover the whole of the UK. So what do you cover with only two assets able to intercept ballistic missiles? The main asset to protect would be the Nuclear Sub base in Scotland. The second Type 45? Do you deploy that to protect London, or another military asset like a Naval Base, or an Air Base?

The clear take away from this, is that the UK is not prepared for an attack. 

In the report it says that the UK has geared up for conventional wars far away, where the adversary can't attack the UK directly. I said at the time that was nonsense. 

I did a wargame back in the Gulf war days, where I envisioned the enemy driving a boat loaded with Scud missiles to a remote estuary in the UK and grounding it on an isolated mudflat somewhere. Once the vessel has grounded, it would provide a stable platform to erect the Scud launchers. The ship's missiles could then attack anywhere within 180 miles. 

From the Thames estuary the ship could attack London, and with enough missiles it could also attack the Logistics depot at Bicester, the Military Port at Marchwood, the Transport Airbase at Brize Norton alongside any number of cities within that 180 mile range in the UK and other targets in Europe. 

My idea for an improvised attack was that the UK intelligence assets would be able to identify and intercept any ship sailing from (say) Iraq, or Libya or any number of adversary countries and it would be dealt with before it ever got to UK shores. 

My assertion that UK anti-air defences should not be scrapped was dismissed. My idea that even a lesser adversary could use unconventional means to launch a ballistic missile attack was dismissed. Of course back then, Russia was not supposed to be an issue, they were dealt with by the Mutual Assured Destruction policy. 

This Parliamentary Defence Briefing Overview states that the UK doesn't have a defence against ballistic missiles. It includes some irrelevant guff about being part of a NATO defence network. Relying on someone else for ballistic missile defence is just another indicator of the cost cutting mentality in the MOD and a justification for stripping our armed forces of the ability to protect it's own civilians. If ever there was a primary role for the Army, Air Force and Navy, that would be it. And they are all failing..

Well, here we are. Totally unprepared for an air attack. We only have a handful of Typhoons operational at any one time able to mount a defence against Bombers launching stand-off missiles. A couple of Typhoons are not a defence against 20 bombers. They simply don't have enough missiles tucked under their wings to dealt with that size of threat. 

We only have a handful of ships able to mount an air picket against bombers and only two able to defend against ballistic missiles. 

We have land-based assets that can defend against conventional air attacks like aircraft, cruise missiles, etc. But we do not have a land-based anti-ballistic missile capability. 

I hope, but very much doubt that the military would take notice of the wargame they did. Even with conventional warheads, anyone launching ballistic missiles at us could severely cripple our military capability. we have reduced and reduced the number of assets under the mantra of force multiplication and multi-role capability, to a point there are not enough assets.

We have reduced the number of bases inside the UK where there is no duplication or reserve capability, the same for equipment, where we've reduced the number of individual units to the point where we cannot cover all requirements. Force multiplication and fulfilling multiple roles does not allow an asset to be in two places at once. 

And we have totally neglected to invest in land-based assets that can deal with ballistic missiles. 

In effect we're relying on enemies not to attack us, which is not a viable military plan at all. 

Starmer's Ideological Paralysis on Show for All to See.

So, we had the decision last weeks by the supreme court that women are women and men are men. 

If a person subsequently identifies as the opposite gender, then they are free to do so, but they do not automatically assume the rights of that gender. 

It took around four days for the Prime Minister to make a statement on this groundbreaking decision by the supreme court. 

This is the problem with the Labour party: they are so tied of with ideological bullshit, they can't govern the country. Four days it took for the Labour spin doctors to come out with a statement that should have taken hours. 

Just a statement to welcome the supreme court's decision and the clarity it provides, would have been sufficient.

But it took four days for the spin doctors to run the speech through their ideological filter so they wouldn't offend any of their ideological interest groups. After all, offending someone is now a crime and Starmer could have gone to court if he said the wrong thing.

Such is the ideological bullshit that we have to put up with nowadays. Angela Rayner's proposed banter ban, where employer's could be held liable for words spoken not by employees, but customers. they have no control over just shovels even more bullshit onto the steaming pile of excrement the law is these days.

But... four days, four days, to make a simple statement. Fuck my life. God help us if the country suddenly was attacked by masses of Labour's ideological chums, the Muslims. A Labour government just wouldn't have an answer to it. 

Finally, Some Sense on the Transgender Issue.

The UK Supreme Court has just issued a ruling to say that the word "Woman" means a person born a biological female. 

For the purposes of equality that is.

Which now brings some sense to the issue of women-only spaces, because men identifying as female and not fully transitioning will not be classed as women and cannot force themselves into women-only spaces.

Which is finally a sensible ruling.

As I've said before, self-identification brings with it huge problems. For instance a quite clearly identifiable man being a man one day and then self-identifying as a woman the next day, without any gender surgery or any work to become more feminine.

That system allows a pervert to self-identify as a woman and then walk into women-only spaces and demand to be allowed into those spaces. That is clearly wrong.

A person with gender dysphoria wouldn't have a problem with this ruling, because they would want to be as feminine as possible to match their dysphoria. They would want the surgery etc.

At that point, they would have done the work and would look like a woman even naked, which would not cause problems in women's changing rooms. 

But a clearly identifiable man, with a beard and a penis will not be supported by equality legislation in their quest to access female-only spaces.

About bloody time.