Here's a good inventory of problems with such an approach... which Japan took so that their top destroyers would not be 'locked in' to a small box of sea, for them to be able to provide the missile shield:NickC wrote:there would be an argument that the equivalent of Aegis Ashore would be a much less expensive option for defending UK than fitting to destroyer.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/20 ... -two-spys/
There's also a passing mention of the usefulness of LEOs in providing sufficient sensor range so that there is time to react to hypersonic or low-level cruise missile threats
- and whether we will be able to pursue that avenue, having enough of such assets in orbit, is a topic that James Cook writes about on p.5 of yesterday's The Sunday Telegraph. Namely, the UK 500 mln was meant to be just the seed money, to enable the purchase. If any other members of 'the bidding consortium' are from other countries that could trigger a CFIUS review, blocking the whole thing.
- in addition UK Space Agency employees have warned that for GPS purposes the system could turn out to be inaccurate without hundreds of satellites. However, for a key building block for a viable missile defence half a bn should be considered 'cheap'