How the UK could be brought to a standstill by a low cost drone attack

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in

Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Membership today.

Just before first light, a re-flagged shadow fleet cargo ship sailing up the North Sea launches a dozen Shahed drones against London. As the UK has no air defence radar looking in this direction, the first notification of this strike comes from Dutch radar. But even at the Shahed’s low speed (175 km/h), the RAF Quick Reaction Alert Typhoons at RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire are unable to intercept the drones before they slam into a range of targets, including Liverpool Street station in the morning rush hour, a hospital, and some electricity infrastructure. Casualties at the station are in the dozens. A dozen drones costing less than $50,000 (£37,000) each bring London to a panicked halt.

Unrealistic? A few years back, you would rightly have scoffed at me for suggesting this. Even the techno-thriller master Tom Clancy wouldn’t have come up with such a scenario (although it is worth recalling that in 1994, he did write a novel in which a commercial aircraft crashed into the Congress building, killing the US president, foreshadowing 9/11).

There is growing disbelief at the blasé attitude of the UK to its defence. The last of former prime minister Keir Starmer’s troubles was John Healey, his defence secretary, resigning over what he perceived as a failure to fund the defence investment plan. But so far prime minister Burnham has declined to commit to the UK increasing its defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP by 2030. Even Starmer’s commitments were bigger than that.

At the Conservative party’s annual conference in Birmingham, the leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, accused Labour of failing to keep the country safe and pledged to build Britain its own £10bn ‘Iron Dome’ missile interception system aimed at protecting the UK from future military attacks.

The system, called “Brittania Shield”, she said, would provide a network of radar, command and control systems to detect incoming strikes along with interceptor missiles and counter-drone capabilities.

The announcement should seen in the context of new threats from Iran amid the ongoing conflict with the US and Israel, as a deal between the country’s looks further away than ever. If US president Donald Trump looks to ramp up attacks in the region after the midterms, there is a fear Iran proxies could launch strikes on targets in Europe. In the summer, sources close to Iran’s government told the Financial Times that potential targets included a British air base in Cyprus that was targeted by a drone in March.

Arguably, the most worrying hint of our unpreparedness was best put by former Royal Marine Al Carns, who, when he was undersecretary for defence, was asked about ballistic missile defence of London at the start of February: “The UK has a suite of capabilities to tackle the missile threat which is advancing, proliferating and converging.

“The UK has announced an investment of up to £1bn to enhance our integrated air and missile defence with a focus on homeland defence. The UK’s nuclear deterrent exists to deter the most extreme threats to the UK and our allies. Its purpose is to preserve peace, prevent coercion, and deter aggression.”

The direct suggestion here is that, were a missile to be fired at London, the UK would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Really? It’s far from certain that the UK’s Nato allies would support this form of escalation, rather seeing any missile or drone strikes on UK soil from an unidentified hostile actor as a result of underinvestment in crucial home defences.

And the “up to £1bn” is less than that – this spend is spread across six to seven years and covers more than “just” air defence systems. The real spend, if it ever comes, is set for the mid-2030s. And if our Nato allies are correct, any threat to the UK will be this decade.

Although the headline sum is impressive – £62bn – the outputs look weak outside of the nuclear deterrent. The harsh truth is that within Nato the UK is increasingly an outlier regarding defence spending and is, in effect, defenceless against air/missile/drone attacks. And while these might have seemed unlikely five years ago, they are now a “when, not if”.

Ms Badenoch said: “The world will not wait for Britain to get ready. War has returned to Europe. Missiles and drones are transforming warfare in the Middle East.

“Cheap weapons can now threaten cities, military bases and critical infrastructure in ways that would have sounded like science fiction a generation ago.“If a missile or drone is launched at Britain, we do not get a second chance to wish we had prepared.”

European Nato is spending tens of billions every year to ensure that it is less at risk of seeing critical national infrastructure destroyed in drone or sabotage attacks, but the same is simply not true of the UK.

Late last year there were large numbers of drone incursions around European airports (especially Copenhagen) and military airbases in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Germany and the Netherlands. Although no one could confirm beyond a reasonable doubt that these were Russian, many have pointed their fingers at Moscow.

These drones weren’t armed, but the one explosive-laden drone was found near a Ukrainian plane at the Leipzig/Halle airport in east Germany in early August, prompting a counterterrorism investigation and fears of a hybrid attack on European soil. This sort of activity has not been limited to continental European countries either.

Gatwick had numerous drone incursions between 2019 and 2023, costing millions in disruption. Police have investigated multiple suspects, but no prosecution successfully identified the operator, and while the incursions were security breaches with unclear origins, some analysts have speculated about testing by hostile actors or “shadow fleet” activity.

Faced with this sort of threat, what can the UK do? At the moment, next to nothing. Ground-based air defence, both missiles and guns, has been run down massively. Air defence has simply not been a priority for over two decades. Quantities of SAMs are ridiculously small, and we have no anti-air artillery. Having guns firing at air targets will undoubtedly sound very Second World War – flak, the Blitz – but it is a very cost-effective solution to what could, in theory, be a devastating homeland attack.

Iran’s renewed threats against Cyprus come after the base was hit in March. What is of note is that a small drone attack against the base today stands a good chance of destroying 10 per cent or more of the RAF’s fighter strength in one hit, making the base defenceless.

This is not the case in most of Europe, where billions of euros are being invested in upgrading and expanding ground-based air defences across the continent. In January, Sweden signed contracts worth over €1.5bn (£1.3bn) for air defence weaponry and radar to counter threats ranging from drones to cruise missiles, and this is just one part of a broader investment package. In line with rising anxieties over renewed Russian aggression, the direct focus of this spending is earmarked for critical national infrastructure and population centres.

Late last year, Germany placed framework contracts to buy up to 600 Skyranger anti-air cannon systems, an order worth as much as €8bn in total. Most of these weapons will be used for airport and airbase defence, as well as for protecting key industrial and infrastructure sites against a wide range of air threats from drones upwards.

These contracts are now the norm in Europe, not the exception. Checking contracts for air defence systems in 2025 points to more than €15bn being spent on anti-air defences, with an emphasis on the defence of critical national infrastructure – and there were more contracts in 2024. In the UK, ask the government about whether there will be investment in more systems to protect the country, and a worrying range of what can only be described as “excuses” are trotted out.

We have Treasury that is still trying to weigh up Britain’s benefit spending against how much is needed to be spent on defence. The leader of the opposition accused Labour of failing to keep the country safe and said she would slash the UK’s welfare bill to fund her defence plans. The Conservatives would aim to have Britannia Shield fully operational by the end of their first term in government if elected at the next general election. Ms Badenoch has also vowed to bring defence spending up to three per cent of GDP by 2030 by reinstating the two-child benefit cap and reforming housing benefit.

What doesn’t seem to be understood by our leaders is that there isn’t a “surface-to-air missile supermarket” where you can push your trolley down, selecting whatever missiles you want. Even with the best money spent, there will be a two-year-plus gap between ordering new SAMs and receiving them.

High demand for air defence systems has made lead times rise, and some European customers for the US Patriot SAM have now been told that they do not know when they will receive their missiles, production being under such stress.

The reliance on Nato for our collective defence is also often emphasised by those tasked with keeping us safe, who regularly point out that our allies would intercept any missiles coming towards the UK.

But would our allies act straight away? Most missile defence systems have computer systems that look at the trajectory of a missile and calculate where it is set to hit. If it is set, say, to hit unpopulated areas or the sea, the computer calculation will be to not waste a missile on it. So a Dutch Patriot SAM, seeing a ballistic missile passing over the Netherlands towards the UK, would in effect say, “nothing to worry about – not a threat to us”.

To my certain knowledge, after numerous conversations over the past year, there have been no explicit talks between the UK and Nato partners about them defending UK airspace with their SAMs. Actually, there has been more astonishment that the UK is not doing more to defend itself.

Burnham, when asked directly about defence spending commitments, suggested that other policy changes would clear a path to meeting targets further down the line, pulling his focus towards the NHS’s ailing social care and his plans to tackle young people out of work.

All valiant missions, but the stark reality is that the UK’s lack of investment in air and missile defences leaves our nation increasingly vulnerable. While Europe acts decisively to protect critical infrastructure, the UK emerges as the exposed man of the continent – with limited options should a coordinated drone or missile strike occur.

Without urgent strategic action, the scenario that once seemed implausible – dozens of inexpensive drones bringing the UK to a halt – could move from fiction to fact. As war escalates in the Middle East and tensions grow across the Baltic regions, the time for complacency is over.

Francis Tusa is editor of ‘Defence Analysis’

Join our commenting forumJoin thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in