RAF Downs Iranian Drones As Starmer Scrambles To Show Some Mettel

The Ministry of Defence has released dramatic footage of a Royal Air Force jet blasting an Iranian drone out of the sky, as Sir Keir Starmer moves to shore up Britain’s defences following fierce criticism from Donald Trump.

The video shows an RAF F-35 destroying a target over Jordan — the first confirmed RAF shoot-down of the conflict. Typhoon jets were also deployed in support as part of what the government called operations to “defend Brits in the Middle East.”

Carrier To The Med

Starmer has now ordered the Type 45 destroyer HMS Dragon to the Mediterranean to reinforce security around RAF Akrotiri, which was struck by an Iranian drone.

Helicopters equipped with counter-drone systems are also being dispatched. The warship is expected to take around a week to reach Cyprus.

The move follows accusations that Britain had left defence duties to France and Greece. President Emmanuel Macron confirmed he was sending two frigates and elements of the Charles de Gaulle strike group to the region.

Trump’s Churchill Swipe

From the White House, Trump accused Starmer of being “very, very uncooperative” and said: “This is not Winston Churchill we’re dealing with.”

He also renewed attacks on Britain’s plan to transfer sovereignty of Chagos Islands — home to the strategically vital Diego Garcia base — to Mauritius.

Spain’s Pedro Sanchez was also criticised after denying US access to joint bases, while Germany and France were praised for their support.

Region On Edge

Iranian strikes have hit Qatar, the UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Cyprus. The US consulate in Dubai was struck by a drone that ignited a fire in a nearby car park, though no injuries were reported.

Air defence interceptions were reported over Doha, Abu Dhabi and Dubai as sirens wailed across the Gulf.

With thousands of Britons still in the region and pressure mounting from Washington, Starmer is now balancing legal caution at home with a show of military resolve abroad — under the glare of an increasingly unforgiving White House.

SOURCE

Once we had one of the best Navy's in the world but not anymore. I worked on HMS Dragon when she was being fitted out at Goven on the clyde. All the other Type 45s are either in re-fit or mothbald. Our only 2 amphibious ships Bullwark and Albion, our 2 new Carriers are not able to go to sea in support of protecting our safety in any conflicts and we have to rel'y on other countries to protect us. Like everything where Starmer is concerned we are now seen as the laughing stock again.

5 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Once we had one of the best Navy's in the world but not anymore. I worked on HMS Dragon when she was being fitted out at Goven on the clyde. All the other Type 45s are either in re-fit or have been sold off like our only 2 amphibious ships Bullwark and Albion, our 2 new Carriers are not able to go to sea in support of protecting our safety in any conflicts and we have to rel'y on other countries to protect us. Like everything where Starmer is concerned we are now seen as the laughing stock again.

None of that is Starmer's fault. Defence spending has increased under this government. The reduction in defence spending was most marked during the Coalition years.

1 hour ago, RayC said:

None of that is Starmer's fault. Defence spending has increased under this government. The reduction in defence spending was most marked during the Coalition years.

The PM must always have a Navel vessel on standby for immediate deployment on standby ready. We have a Nuclear Submarine on patrol all the time. The surface fleet of Type 45s such as Dragon, Diamond, defender are relativly new yet are all in Dock nothing to do cuts. There simply not able to be put to sea to protect Cyprus until at least next week. Starmers to busy appeasing the Muslim voters like last night when he spoke to a Ramadan meeting rather than get his war cabinet together and speeding up Royal Navy Surface ships to the Gulf.

A news Item on GB News yesterday summed up the state of our defence capabilities when a Cypriot said " Why should we put ourselves in danger when we have a UK base on Cypriot soil that cannot protect us "

2 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

The PM must always have a Navel vessel on standby for immediate deployment on standby ready. We have a Nuclear Submarine on patrol all the time. The surface fleet of Type 45s such as Dragon, Diamond, defender are relativly new yet are all in Dock nothing to do cuts. There simply not able to be put to sea to protect Cyprus until at least next week. Starmers to busy appeasing the Muslim voters like last night when he spoke to a Ramadan meeting rather than get his war cabinet together and speeding up Royal Navy Surface ships to the Gulf.

And yet again, I would question how the fault can be laid at Starmer's feet?

Surely the issues which you outline are operational. If so, then it's the Navy's job to manage them, so shouldn't responsibility for any failure fall on the shoulders of the First Sea Lord?

Starmer has done his best to protect British interests the last year, flattering the world's worst narcissist when necessary.

In the end he still gets abuse from across the pond.

Never mind, our future lies in Europe.

Let the raving motormouth rant on, America first, and alone with Israel

13 minutes ago, bannork said:

Starmer has done his best to protect British interests the last year

Is that why approx 64 percent disapprove of his best ?

1 hour ago, RayC said:

And yet again, I would question how the fault can be laid at Starmer's feet?

Surely the issues which you outline are operational. If so, then it's the Navy's job to manage them, so shouldn't responsibility for any failure fall on the shoulders of the First Sea Lord?

Your wrong Ray it comes from the top at the end of the day. The defence minister is above the 1st Sea lord so anything that goes on has to come from the secretary of defence. The Captain of a trident Submarine can not fire untill the PM has given the go ahead. Out of the Six type 45s we have only 2 are capable of putting to sea. HMS Daring has been in dry dock for nearly 9 years. where has the defence minister been for the last 18 Months of this labour government been. He certainly has been slow or not been kept up to date with our reddiness in the fleet. You can't blame the last government we have a decent fleet available now but labour have ignored potential threats.

9 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

HMS Daring has been in dry dock for nearly 9 years.

Kier Starmer personally snuck in to the naval base just over 9 years ago and put it there himself.

9 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

You can't blame the last government we have a decent fleet available now but labour have ignored potential threats.

You can't blame the last government for a ship being in dry dock for nine years?? Nearly eight of them under their watch.

14 years of Tory neglect, Starmer comes in and increases defence spending and pledges continued steady and sustained increases over the next nine years, yet Barramarra blames him for it all. Amazing. I suppose it's an improvement on blaming the immigrants for once...

Two weeks ago maybe 3 weeks ago we witnessed AMERICA sending a large fleet to the Gulf for what ?? what did our PM or defence secretary do ? nothing they never saw what was going to happen. Horse stable door comes to mind. Its got nothing to do with past Governments Ray. We have a fleet to defend UK Bases but we have lost our way. Tell us why we have to watch foreghn vessels protecting our base in Cyprus when we have 6 frigates sat in Portsmouth, and why. As for joebloggs he is doing what he usually does sits back and waits for his chance to have a go at members. He is the 1 likely to giving the red thumbs down another trait he is known for but hasnt got the backbone to admit it.

35 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

Two weeks ago maybe 3 weeks ago we witnessed AMERICA sending a large fleet to the Gulf for what ?? what did our PM or defence secretary do ? nothing they never saw what was going to happen. Horse stable door comes to mind. Its got nothing to do with past Governments Ray. We have a fleet to defend UK Bases but we have lost our way. Tell us why we have to watch foreghn vessels protecting our base in Cyprus when we have 6 frigates sat in Portsmouth, and why. As for joebloggs he is doing what he usually does sits back and waits for his chance to have a go at members. He is the 1 likely to giving the red thumbs down another trait he is known for but hasnt got the backbone to admit it.

The rights and wrongs of Starmer's decisions wrt the conflict in Iran is a completely different issue.

You are trying to blame operational failings on Starmer which, by your own admission, have been present for 9 years.

The PM is the most senior politician in government so, ultimately, the buck stops with them. However, applying that maxim to every event would mean that the PM should be accountable and take responsibility for each and every failure in the UK. Potholes in Coldharbour Lane, Brixton? Blame Starmer. Ambulances out of service at St. Thomas? Blame Starmer. Clearly, it's nonsensical to do so and it would be nonsensical no matter whoever the PM happens to be.

You are letting your loathing of Starmer cloud your judgement, Barra.

4 hours ago, RayC said:

The rights and wrongs of Starmer's decisions wrt the conflict in Iran is a completely different issue.

You are trying to blame operational failings on Starmer which, by your own admission, have been present for 9 years.

The PM is the most senior politician in government so, ultimately, the buck stops with them. However, applying that maxim to every event would mean that the PM should be accountable and take responsibility for each and every failure in the UK. Potholes in Coldharbour Lane, Brixton? Blame Starmer. Ambulances out of service at St. Thomas? Blame Starmer. Clearly, it's nonsensical to do so and it would be nonsensical no matter whoever the PM happens to be.

You are letting your loathing of Starmer cloud your judgement, Barra.

And you dodging the question Ray, why should we have to rel'y on another country to protect a UK base in Cyprus when we have 6 frigates sat in Portsmouth.

5 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

And you dodging the question Ray, why should we have to rel'y on another country to protect a UK base in Cyprus when we have 6 frigates sat in Portsmouth.

You are changing the question, Barra.

Your post, to which I replied, blamed Starmer for the current state of our Navy. By your own admission, one issue dates back 9 years, so I - and others - pointed out that Starmer can hardly be blamed for that. In a similar vein, if as you suggest, the Navy's capabilities have been run down, you can hardly lay the blame for that solely at the feet of Starmer. Even if he had commissioned the purchase and/or refitting of vessels on Day 1 of his premiership, it is unlikely that those vessels would be ready for action today.

As for the lack of naval defence capability in Cyprus, AI suggests the following:

1. Extremely Limited Ship Availability: The Royal Navy lacks sufficient, available frigates and destroyers to maintain continuous presence in all desired regions.

2. Prioritisation of Missions: Available warships were tasked with higher-priority, urgent missions, forcing a choice to not station vessels near Cyprus.

3. Underfunding: Long-term, chronic underfunding of the defence budget has left the Navy with too few ships, limiting the ability to react quickly to every situation.

4. Initial Absence of Immediate Threats: While regional tensions were high, it was not until the drone strike in early March 2026 that an immediate, localized threat to the base was deemed high enough to justify rushing a destroyer to the area.

Points 1) and 3) cannot be blamed on Starmer. He can be held responsible for points 2) and 4) but point 2) is a by-product of 1). Wrt point 4), hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Starmer can be blamed for many things, but the current state of our Navy isn't one of them.

2 hours ago, RayC said:

Starmer can be blamed for many things, but the current state of our Navy isn't one of them.

Of the six Type 45s the UK has, just three are able to put to sea. The other three are in refit. HMS Daring, the lead ship of the class, has been out of action for almost nine years.

Only two of the seven Type 23 frigates are in a state to set sail. The rest are in refit or extended maintenance.

16 hours ago, bannork said:

Starmer has done his best to protect British interests the last year, flattering the world's worst narcissist when necessary.

In the end he still gets abuse from across the pond.

Never mind, our future lies in Europe.

Let the raving motormouth rant on, America first, and alone with Israel

11 year record unemployment for youth.

17 hours ago, RayC said:

And yet again, I would question how the fault can be laid at Starmer's feet?

Surely the issues which you outline are operational. If so, then it's the Navy's job to manage them, so shouldn't responsibility for any failure fall on the shoulders of the First Sea Lord?

Starmer's government controls the budget and the money just isn't there for the MoD, despite all the claims of increase spending. Look closely at the so called increases: They are for future projects. Actual investment in the existing naval fleet is well below the needs. And yes, past governments share in the neglect. However, Starmer had an opportunity to correct the past errors and did not.

3 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Starmer's government controls the budget and the money just isn't there for the MoD, despite all the claims of increase spending. Look closely at the so called increases: They are for future projects. Actual investment in the existing naval fleet is well below the needs. And yes, past governments share in the neglect.

Ah, so he should have come in and immediately magicked up billions of pounds on day 1. Of course plotting future spending increases is sensible as it can be planned, the budget can be balanced, and it can be sustainable - something that hasn't happened in the UK for many years, there's always been a distinct lack of planning. An increase in one area means a decrease in another.

So yes, he has pledged steady and affordable increases, the largest increase to defence spending since the Cold War. And he also increased defence spending by nearly £3b in the 2025-2026 budget so that was a pretty immediate action, no?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad#:~:text=On%2025%20February%202025%2C%20the,security%20and%20our%20economic%20growth.

https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/uk-unveils--3-bln-defense-boost-to-counter-russian-threat

3 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

However, Starmer had an opportunity to correct the past errors and did not.

Er, what on earth are you talking about? He DID take action to correct past errors, and he did it pretty quickly upon taking charge. Ships aren't just plucked from trees, munitions aren't just taken out of an office drawer. How on earth you can blame Starmer when he is the only person in decades to address the underfunding of our military is quite hard to fathom. It is just irrational hatred.

14 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

As for joebloggs he is doing what he usually does sits back and waits for his chance to have a go at members. He is the 1 likely to giving the red thumbs down another trait he is known for but hasnt got the backbone to admit it.

You always see it as a personal attack when someone disagrees with you or argues against you, you are a very sensitive little snowflake, those emojis are painful I know.

And FWIW I have only given you one in this thread. No problem admitting it - in fact I would prefer if they weren't anonymous. Oh, and I gave it to you for your ridiculous comment that Starmer is too busy appeasing Muslims to fix the military or something like that. I gave it you for three reasons:

1. It was stupid and deserved it.
2. It shows blind hatred of Starmer and makes no logical sense whatsoever, and it deserved it.
3. You had to bring Muslims in to it (again) which is stupid, shows your anti-Muslim colours (again), and deserved it.

Hope that helps. Happy to explain. Do I have a backbone now? And sorry, I don't know who gave you your others. Maybe, just maybe, they disagreed with your posts? Isn't that what they are for?

Why is it only the right wing posters who bleat about emojis?

52 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Ah, so he should have come in and immediately magicked up billions of pounds on day 1. Of course plotting future spending increases is sensible as it can be planned, the budget can be balanced, and it can be sustainable - something that hasn't happened in the UK for many years, there's always been a distinct lack of planning. An increase in one area means a decrease in another.

So yes, he has pledged steady and affordable increases, the largest increase to defence spending since the Cold War. And he also increased defence spending by nearly £3b in the 2025-2026 budget so that was a pretty immediate action, no?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad/the-strategic-defence-review-2025-making-britain-safer-secure-at-home-strong-abroad#:~:text=On%2025%20February%202025%2C%20the,security%20and%20our%20economic%20growth.

https://english.almayadeen.net/news/politics/uk-unveils--3-bln-defense-boost-to-counter-russian-threat

Er, what on earth are you talking about? He DID take action to correct past errors, and he did it pretty quickly upon taking charge. Ships aren't just plucked from trees, munitions aren't just taken out of an office drawer. How on earth you can blame Starmer when he is the only person in decades to address the underfunding of our military is quite hard to fathom. It is just irrational hatred.

So he increased spending but was shown up as a coward under pressure. No Churchill is right. He's a blouse.

Its a thread relating to Starmer showing a backbone, he was slow getting any ships sea ready when America planned in advance to send ships to the Gulf, three weeks in he finally started one ship ready to go, which will be ready to set sail in two weeks a good month after the Yanks sent there ships. If you change the question thats what a discussion is about. I asked you a simple question Ray but you don't appear to want to answer it so I will ask you again. Why is a foreighn Country protecting a UK base in Cyprus.

10 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

why should we have to rel'y on another country to protect a UK base in Cyprus when we have 6 frigates sat in Portsmouth.

Given your position as the self appointed AN arbiter of such things you should know that Type 23 frigates are primarily anti-submarine warships whereas Type 45 destroyers are primarily designed for anti-aircraft and anti-missile warfare. Seeing as Iran has not yet attacked Akrotiri using submarines maybe type 23 is not the obvious choice.

Prior to this "war" when a type 45 showed up in the gulf naval allies would defer primary air defence to them as type 45's are quite good at that.

You can tell us if a type 23 air defence radar systems are as good as S1850 and Sampson?

1 hour ago, khaosokman said:

So he increased spending but was shown up as a coward under pressure. No Churchill is right. He's a blouse.

A coward under pressure? He stood up to the world bully by refusing to allow UK bases to be used to launch illegal offensive and unprovoked attacks. I don't remember any other leader standing up to US bullying.

1 minute ago, josephbloggs said:

A coward under pressure? He stood up to the world bully by refusing to allow UK bases to be used to launch illegal offensive and unprovoked attacks. I don't remember any other leader standing up to US bullying.

45 years of terrorism and Islamic fascism. Should have been bombed last century!

4 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

45 years of terrorism and Islamic fascism. Should have been bombed last century!

What a fine specimen of the human race you are.

1 minute ago, JBChiangRai said:

What a fine specimen of the human race you are.

I support the good guys. You support the fascist terrorists. You are no better than a Hitler supporter.

6 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

I support the good guys. You support the fascist terrorists. You are no better than a Hitler supporter.

If your argument boils down to calling me Hitler, it says more about your lack of substance than my position. I’m here to discuss facts and principles, not trade playground insults. If you want to talk seriously about who’s acting like fascists, let’s look at actions, not labels.

Supporting human rights and opposing indiscriminate violence isn’t fascism — it’s the opposite. If you can’t tell the difference, maybe that’s the real problem.

Just now, JBChiangRai said:

If your argument boils down to calling me Hitler, it says more about your lack of substance than my position. I’m here to discuss facts and principles, not trade playground insults. If you want to talk seriously about who’s acting like fascists, let’s look at actions, not labels.

Supporting human rights and opposing indiscriminate violence isn’t fascism — it’s the opposite. If you can’t tell the difference, maybe that’s the real problem.

I think you have been a raving Israel hater your whole life.

8 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

I think you have been a raving Israel hater your whole life.

No, only since the genocide and war crimes in Gaza. I'm not sure about "raving" I'm too old to "rave" now.

8 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

I think you have been a raving Israel hater your whole life.

Do your parents know you're on the computer?

Seriously, is that the extent of your arguments? Call someone Hitler then a "raving Israel hater".

Grow up.