The Royal Air Force & Ground Based Air Defence

[Bernard Woolley]

The Royal Air Force & Ground Based Air Defence


Introduction

Prior to the disbandment of Anti-Aircraft Command on 10th March 1955, the British Army had the primary responsibility for Ground Based Air Defence (GBAD) of the United Kingdom. By the mid-1950s the network of radar directed medium and heavy AA gun was seen to be obsolete in the age of jet bombers and atomic weaponry. By default, the responsibility for GBAD fell to the RAF. In practise, it would mean in the main defending some of the RAF’s air stations, rather than British cities, towns and industrial sites.

In the mid-Fifties the then Air Ministry did plan to build a large number of missile sites to replace the guns of AA Command, however, that did not come to pass. Only a more limited deployment of Bloodhound Mk. I and II would take place to protect the V-Bomber bases. These missiles being in place between the late 1950s and around 1970s. The Bloodhound missiles would subsequently be re-deployed to RAF Germany until the mid-1970s and early 1980s, when they would return to the UK.

Outside of the UK, GBAD would primarily be the responsibility of the RAF Regiment. RAF personnel had manned Light Anti-Aircraft guns during the early years of the Second World War, but that would become the responsibility of the RAF Regiment from 1942 onwards. First with 20mm Hispano and later 40mm Bofors guns. LAA squadrons would serve both at home and abroad, going wherever the RAF did. Post-war the regiment would upgrade to the L/70 variant of the Bofors and enter the missile age with the Tigercat (only used by No. 48 Squadron) and eventually the Rapier system.


The Situation circa 1990
By 1990 the RAF had three GBAD systems in service.
The first was the venerable Bloodhound Mark II, which was now operated by a single large squadron, having absorbed the second squadron when its identity had been given to a new Tornado F.3 unit. While Bloodhound was an ageing system by 1990, it would still have to be respected by any potentially hostile aircraft that came within range.
The second missile system in service was Rapier Field Standard B1, which equipped the RAF Regiment’s air defence squadrons. The FSB1 firing unit could carry four missiles, and the system as a whole incorporated lessons learned during the Falklands War. While the British Army was in the process of upgrading to the Field Standard B2, the RAF had chosen to wait for the forthcoming Field Standard C. In 1990 ten squadrons of the RAF Regiment were equipped with Rapier, including three squadrons that defended USAF bases in the UK. [1]
The third system was perhaps the most interesting, having been captured from Argentinean forces in 1982. The Skyguard/Oerlikon GDF-002 35mm was exclusively operated by the Royal Auxiliary Air Force Regiment. The two squadrons were also the only part of the regiment to admit women, which they did decades before their regular counterparts.

Around 1990 the order of battle of the RAF’s Ground Based Air Defences were as follows:

RAF Strike Command

11 Group

RAF Lossiemouth
- No. 48 Squadron – Rapier FSB1

RAF Leuchars
- No. 27 Squadron – Rapier FSB1

RAF Leeming
- No. 15 Squadron – Rapier FSB1

RAF Waddington
1339 Wing, RAuxAF
- No. 2729 (City of Lincoln) Squadron - Skyguard/Oerlikon GDF-002 35mm
- No. 2890 Squadron - Skyguard/Oerlikon GDF-002 35mm (defended RAF Conningsby)

RAF West Raynham
No. 6 Wing (Defended USAF bases)
- No. 19 Squadron - RAF Brize Norton - Rapier FSB1 (RAF Fairford and RAF Upper Heyford)
- No. 20 Squadron - RAF Honington - Rapier FSB1 (RAF Alconbury, RAF Woodbridge/Bentwaters)
- No. 66 Squadron - RAF West Raynham - Rapier FSB1 (RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath)

- No. 85 Squadron – Bloodhound Mk. II
-- A Flight at RAF West Raynham
-- B Flight at RAF North Coates
-- C Flight at RAF Bawdsey
-- D Flight at RAF Barkston Heath
-- E Flight at RAF Wattisham
-- F Flight at RAF Wyton
Note: Not manned by RAF Regiment


RAF Germany

RAF Wildenrath
No. 4 Wing
- No. 16 Squadron - RAF Wildenrath - Rapier FSB1
- No. 26 Squadron - RAF Laarbruch - Rapier FSB1
- No. 37 Squadron - RAF Bruggen - Rapier FSB1
- No. 63 Squadron - RAF Gütersloh - Rapier FSB1


Replacing Bloodhound: Take One
While it remained a viable system, by the early 1990s, Bloodhound was getting harder to support. For example, the RAF was forced to buy missiles from the Swiss. It was only effective against high-flying aircraft, with only a limited capability against low flyers. The Mark II system was, in theory at least, supposed to be mobile. However, the RAF operated it in a static fashion. Which meant that the locations of the flights were well known to any potential enemy and could be avoided, or worse, attacked. The RAF was keen to replace Bloodhound II with a modern, mobile system that would provide wider coverage of the country.

In the early 1990s, the MoD and RAF launched a competition to replace Bloodhound. The requirement being known as Medium-range Surface-to-Air Missile – MSAM. Three main systems were bid to meet the requirement:

- The GEC/Marconi/Eurosam SAMP/T (Sol-Air Moyen Portée/Terrestre). That system was essentially a land-based version of the Aster naval SAM and would eventually enter service with the French Air Force.

- Siemens/Plessey/Hughes/NFT Advanced SAM (AdSAM). Based on the Norwegian NASAMS project, which would also lead to the Surface Launched AMRAAM system.

- Raytheon/BAe mix of Patriot with additional Rapier Field Standard C as “gap-fillers”. This option also involved procuring Starstreak HVM and some additional Oerlikon 35mm guns.

A decision was expected in 1992/1993. As a battle-proven system, the Patriot was the RAF’s favourite option. Although, the AdSAM was a close second, since it would offer commonality with the AMRAMM. However, the economic downturn of the early 1990s would torpedo the whole MSAM project. Despite the Directorate of Air Defence demonstrating that once the initial expense of procurement had been spent, any new system would cost far less than running on Bloodhound, that was exactly what a Treasury mandated spending freeze would mean. Had MSAM entered service, it would have been manned by the RAF Regiment, which might have been one reasons that certain parts of the RAF did not fight too hard to retain it.
While MSAM was dead, at least for now, all was not lost from the project. While no official announcement had been made, informally the Raytheon/BAe option had won, and planning had started on the basis of it entering service. [2] The RAF Regiment would go on to procure the Starstreak HVM, both in the Light Multiple Launcher and the Stormer HVM variants. The LML variant would be issued to Rapier and Skyguard/Oerlikon squadrons, as a section of six launchers manned by locally recruited auxiliary personnel. Field Squadrons would gain a flight equipped with LML. Light armoured squadrons would gain a flight equipped with four Stormers.
The buy of five GDF-005 guns would also go ahead. Along with three spare GDF-002 guns, upgraded to -005 standard, these would equip a new Anglo-West German squadron. In short, the RAuAF Regiment would crew the guns, while the Luftwaffe would crew four Skyguard radars. In exercises and war that squadron would deploy to West Germany to improve the low-level air defence of vital forward airfields.
It appears that the HVM part of the MSAM project survived because the army had already made a large order for Starstreak in both variants, and the RAF order could be tacked on to it at little additional cost. The Skyguard/Oerlikon portion survived because it had already been agreed by both governments and, thus, it would have been embarrassing for the MoD to cancel it.

In the absence of anything better, Bloodhound was forced to soldier on until 1998. Although, a final firing of missiles would take place at Benbecula in 1999.


Expansion and improvements
The rest of the period from around 1993 to 2005 would see improvement in both equipment and a degree of expansion of the RAF’s GBAD force. First of all, the regular squadrons of the RAF Regiment would upgrade to Field Standard C. Most squadrons would have FSC by the turn of the century. The exceptions were the three squadrons of No. 6 Wing. As the FSB1 used by these squadrons belonged to the USAF, it would take a decision by the DoD to proceed with replacement. While the USAF was keen, the US Congress threw a spanner in the works, with various Representatives and Senators questioning why the USAF wanted to buy a “foreign system”. It would take the air force Chief of Staff testifying before United States Senate Committee on Armed Services to get Congressional approval. Something helped by the fact that the MoD had let the USAF know that should the latter not chose to procure FSC, it would disband the squadrons and redistribute the personnel. Not wanting to have to meet the cost of training RAF Regiment gunners on the FSB1, when it had been withdrawn by the rest of the regiment and the army. The MoD was also clear that if the USAF procured an American missile system to defend its bases in the UK, it would have to provide its own personnel to man them. By 2002, the three squadron of No. 6 Wing would be equipped with FSC. [3] However, these three squadrons would not gain an HVM equipped section, the manpower ceiling and TOE of them having been set by a US-UK agreement. On mobilisation, US Army Reserve personnel equipped with the Avenger and shoulder fired Stinger would deploy to the UK, being attached to these units.

As part of the Strategic Defence Review of 1997/1998, two additional RAuxAF Regiment Squadrons would be formed. These squadron would be equipped with the Skyguard/Oerlikon system, with the guns upgraded to GDF-005 standard. The existing two squadrons would briefly operate Rapier FSB1, before transitioning to FSC. One of the new squadrons would be used to defend RAF Kinloss, while the second would be available for foreign deployment. [4]

It might be wondered, and indeed was at the time, why the RAF chose to retire the Rapier Field Standard B1, rather than the Skyguard/Oerlikon. Commentators would point out the potential savings of using what they perceived to be different variants of the same system. The truth was that there was very little commonality between the FSB1 and FSC variants. Retaining the older variant would have entailed extra costs, not to mention having to continue to procure spare parts for the older system. Moreover, the Skyguard/Oerlikon represented sunk-costs, and as it was operated by auxiliary personnel, it was a cheap system to operate and support. Certainly cheaper than re-equipping the RAuxAF squadron with FSB1 in the long-term. The system had also proved in both war and exercises that it was as deadly as Rapier, albeit at a shorter range. The RAF disposed of many of its FSB1 systems to other Rapier operators who still used similar variants, although some of the variant was placed in mothballs.

By the turn of the century the RAF would have a highly effective, layered low-level GBAD system in both the UK and West Germany. Although, arguably, it was still too limited in the UK. With many RAF stations still having to depend solely on passive (i.e. hardened structures) rather than active defence. But what of the MSAM requirement?


Replacing Bloodhound: Take Two
Almost as soon as the MSAM project had been cancelled BAe had begun work on a potential private-venture replacement. Something that would continue when the joint-venture BAe/Matra consortium, MBDA, was formed in the mid-1990s. Perhaps ironically, all the companies that had submitted proposals for MSAM would become involved to some extent in what would become Broadsword/Garfish.

The story of the development of the Broadsword/Garfish system has been told elsewhere, and it is only intended to touch briefly on it. [5] An ambitious specification was chosen, both variants were to be a Mach.5 + ramjet powered missile superior to anything currently in service, or likely to be. Broadsword was also supposed to be as mobile as the American Patriot system, which had been chosen as a baseline. It was no surprise that the project began to run over budget, “eating money like it was going out of fashion”, as the project’s own Chief Designer himself commented. Pressure started to mount from HM Treasury to cancel the Broadsword variant and procure a cheaper missile, such as Patriot. On this occasion, the MoD stuck to its guns, arguing that should Broadsword be cancelled, not only would millions of pounds have been wasted, but the overall cost of Garfish would rise. Moreover, the project was progressing very successfully. The RAF also lobbied very hard for Broadsword, arguing that only it met the air force’s requirements (the official requirement had been very closely written around Broadsword, which was no accident). MBDA when asked, would add that it would not participate in any licence-build of Patriot and that setting up production lines for either SAMP/T, or SLAMRAAM, would take some time and be more expensive than the Garfish/Broadsword. They also suggested that the company would not have the capacity to build both Garfish and any replacement for Broadsword. Interestingly, at the same time the possibility of an “off the shelf” replacement for Broadsword leaked, with predictable reactions amongst government backbenchers and the Opposition in Parliament. Sections of the media also commented that such an option would put highly skilled British workers out of work, damage the British defence industry and mean that the RAF would receive an inferior missile system. Under such concerted pressure, HM Treasury folded; it was rumoured that the Chancellor himself told his officials that cancelling Broadsword would put people in his constituency and two adjacent ones out of work. Funding for Broadsword would be assured.

While Broadsword would enter service in March 1998, the cost of the project had meant that the planned deployment had been slightly cut back. Instead of a wider deployed system manned by the RAF Regiment, it would simply re-equip the existing Bloodhound II squadron. Plans for a second squadron were also postponed. While in peacetime, Broadsword would be deployed on the same stations as its predecessor, on exercises and war, it would take to the field and regularly change sites. Its longer range also meant that it could protect a much larger area of the UK, covering a large part of the east coast of England. Moreover, as argued as part of the original MSAM project, Broadsword required a fraction of the manpower of Bloodhound to operate. Which made it cheaper to operate in the medium to long-term, also allowing many valuable personnel, such as engineers, to be redeployed to other parts of the air force, where they were solely needed


Prelude to War: 2005
By the time the RAF began to mobilise, the GBAD force was an expanded and better equipped force than it had been in the early 1990s. It would no longer have to depend on an obsolescent, difficult to maintain medium ranged missile system. At low level it had a layered system made up of Rapier, Skyguard/Oerlikon and Starstreak HVM. However, while the air stations of RAF Germany were now all well defended, there were still many in the UK lacking any form of active air defence. At least any Soviet missiles, or aircraft would find it difficult to avoid the engagement zones of missiles and guns to reach those air stations without their own defences.

By 2005 the order of battle of the RAF’s Ground Based Air Defences were as follows:

RAF Strike Command

11 Group

RAF Lossiemouth
- No. 48 Squadron – Rapier FSC, Starstreak HVM

RAF Leuchars
- No. 27 Squadron – Rapier FSC, Starstreak HVM

RAF Leeming
- No. 15 Squadron – Rapier FSC, Starstreak HVM


RAF Waddington
1339 Wing, RAuxAF
No. 2701 Squadron - RAF West Raynham - Skyguard/Oerlikon GDF-005 35mm, Starstreak HVM (to RAF Germany, Anglo-German unit)
No. 2729 (City of Lincoln) Squadron - RAF Waddington - Rapier FSC, Starstreak HVM
No. 2890 Squadron - RAF Waddington - Rapier FSC, Starstreak HVM (defended RAF Conningsby)
No. 2612 (City of Aberdeen) Squadron - RAF Kinloss - Skyguard/Oerlikon GDF-005 35mm, Starstreak HVM
No. 2834 Squadron - RAF West Raynham - Skyguard/Oerlikon GDF-005 35mm, Starstreak HVM


RAF West Raynham
No. 6 Wing (Defended USAF bases)
- No. 19 Squadron - RAF Brize Norton - Rapier FSC (RAF Fairford and RAF Upper Heyford)
- No. 20 Squadron - RAF Honington - Rapier FSC (RAF Alconbury, RAF Woodbridge/Bentwaters)
- No. 66 Squadron - RAF West Raynham - Rapier FSC (RAF Mildenhall and RAF Lakenheath)
Note: USAR personnel equipped with Avenger and Stinger joined these units on mobilisation.

- No. 85 Squadron – Broadsword Mark 1.
-- A Flight at RAF West Raynham
-- B Flight at RAF North Coates
-- C Flight at RAF Bawdsey


RAF Wyton
No. 112 Squadron - ‘Broadsword’ Mk.1 [6]
- A Flight – RAF Barkston Heath
- B Flight – RAF Wattisham
- C Flight – RAF Wyton


RAF Germany

RAF Wildenrath
No. 4 Wing
- No. 16 Squadron - RAF Wildenrath - Rapier FSC, Starstreak HVM
- No. 26 Squadron - RAF Laarbruch - Rapier FSC, Starstreak HVM
- No. 37 Squadron - RAF Bruggen - Rapier FSC, Starstreak HVM
- No. 63 Squadron - RAF Gütersloh - Rapier FSC, Starstreak HVM


Into the abyss: War
Soviet attacks on RAF stations began almost simultaneously with its various ground invasions. The Ground Based Air Defence crews found themselves stretched to breaking point and beyond. While they would take a heavy toll of the attackers, they could not stop every missile, or bomber and RAF stations and critical national infrastructure took damage. Critically, the vital heart of government in Whitehall became a target and lacked any form of GBAD. A team of Royal Artillery and RAF Regiment instructors equipped with Starstreak LML would be rushed to the Government Security Zone to provide minimum air defence, bringing down a Su-34 ‘Fullback’ on 1st May.

The RAF also searched through its stores and warehouses for anything that would add to the air defences of its stations. A large number of L7 GPMG and Browning HMG would soon appear on AA mounts. How effective they were was arguable, but they were better than nothing. More effective were some Bofors L/70s that were found in a few of the remoter warehouses. When these guns and their associated systems had been replaced by Rapier in the mid-1970s, most of them had been placed in mothballs and largely forgotten. Although, some had been sold to Thailand in 1987. During the Transition to War, they were discovered and pulled from storage. Due to the need to train gunners they were not issued until the second week of the war, forming the third flight of Rapier squadrons. Initially these new flights would have two to three guns and would also be equipped with the Air Defence Alerting Device. Once National Service personnel joined the RAF it proved possible to form some additional independent flights equipped with the L/70 to provide defence of air stations and other facilities with no existing GBAD.

While MBDA would produce all the Rapier FSC it could for both the RAF and British Army, interestingly, additional Skyguard/Oerlikon systems reached the UK during the war. The source of these systems is still Top Secret; however, it is known that Switzerland continued to export “agricultural equipment” and “miscellaneous electronics and optical equipment” to a number of Western European nations, including the UK. The rumours that instructors from Oerlikon Contraves, who were also Swiss Army reservists, helped train new RAF gunners, are of course untrue. That would have been a violation of the strict Swiss neutrality. It has instead been suggested that it is much more likely that the UK managed to persuade other users of the Skyguard/Oerlikon system to part with some guns and radars.


Conclusion
Even when pushed to the limit, the RAF’s ground defenders would extract a high cost from their Soviet attackers. For example, the two Broadsword squadrons very quickly virtually closed most of the UK’s airspace to Mig-25R ‘Foxbats’. The low-level missile and gun defences also took a toll on Soviet attackers. When combined with the defending interceptors and fighter aircraft, it would be a toll even the Soviets would find hard to pay in the long run.

Could the RAF’s Ground Based Air Defences have been more extensive? Perhaps. However, in peacetime it is difficult to justify spending money on the perfect defence system for something that may not happen. Most governments will settle for the minimum level in peacetime, or “good enough” in times of tension. It can also be argued that the budget freeze of the early 1990s had a silver lining. After all, without it, the RAF would not have procured the excellent Broadsword system, but instead would have had the still good, but inferior Patriot. It must also be remembered that no air defence system, however good, can prevent all attacks from getting through. Instead, it is the job of air defence, whether air, or ground based, to force attrition on the enemy and make them miss their intended target. Even when RAF gunners did not shoot down enemies, they often achieved the latter.

Under immense pressure and often under attack themselves, the RAF’s ground-based air defenders helped to defeat the Soviet attack on the UK. They did not get as much publicity as the aircrew flying Tornados, Typhoons and Hawks, but without them, the RAF could not have mounted an effective defence. They, and their predecessors of AA Command in the Last War, deserve to be better remembered.

***


Appendix – Similar GBAD in some allied countries


Australia
Ground Based Air Defence in the Australian Defence Force is shared between the Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force, in much the same way as it is in the UK. However, until the Second Confrontation that was not the case, the RAAF having no GBAD capability. Indonesian air attacks during the early phase of the Second Confrontation overstretched the army’s ability to provide GBAD. It was clear that something had to change.
Firstly, with the introduction of National Service, the army would form additional Rapier regiments, also upgrading to Field Standard C. It would also procure the Leopard Marksman and a variant of the ASLAV with the same HVM turret as the Stormer. The RBS-70 system would be transferred to the RAAF, Starstreak HVM on LML replacing it in a newly raised regiment of the RAA.
To defend forward airfields, the RAAF’s Airfield Defence Guards would take on the point-defence role with ex-RAA RBS-70. In the longer term Starstreak LML would replace the RBS-70. To defend Australia itself, two squadrons (one regular and one reserve) equipped with MIM-104 Patriot and M113 ADATS, were raised.


Canada
GBAD in Canada was sole responsibility of the Royal Canadian Artillery. M113 ADATS and Starstreak HVM was used to defend troops in the field. While M113 ADATS and Oerlikon/Skyguard defended Canada’s two air bases in West Germany.


France
GBAD in the French armed forces is similarly to that of the UK. The French Army had the responsibility to provide air defence “in the field”. Using a variety of systems, including the SAMP/T, I-HAWK, Roland III, LeClerc DCA and a number of different LAA guns. The Armée de l'Air was responsible for the air defence of its airfields, using Crotale NG, SAMP/T, Mistral and 20mm cannon.


Germany, West
The Luftwaffe was responsible for the air defence of rear areas, with Patriot and I-HAWK. Many airfields were defended by Roland and 20mm cannons. The Bundesmarine also operated some Roland and LAA guns to defend its airfields.
With the entry into service of Patriot, replacing Nike-Hercules, the Luftwaffe was able to move away from fixed SAM sites that formed part of a NATO ‘SAM Belt’. Instead, Patriot and I-HAWK would operate from a number of pre-surveyed sites and would be frequently moved. The Luftwaffe planned to replace both the current variant of Patriot and I-HAWK with the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). That will use the PAC-3 MSE and IRIS-T SL. However, the first MEADS is not expected to enter service until after 2010.
The Heer was responsible for GBAD “in the field”. Employing a variety of systems, including the Gepard SPAAG.


United States
Similar to the situation in the UK, in the United States, Army Air Defense Command provided GBAD to CONUS, Alaska, Hawai’i and other US territories. Where it differed from Britain, was that ARADCOM survived until 1975. Transitioning from AAA guns to missiles, like the Nike Hercules and HAWK. By 2005, the US Army (regular, USAR and Army National Guard) still had primary responsibility for GBAD both “in the field” and in the United States. A variety of systems were in service, including Avenger, Bradley ADATS, MIM-120 SLAMRAAM, HAWK, Patriot, Centurion C-RAM, and THAAD.
The USAF had also recently introduced Air Defense Missile wings equipped with the SLAMRAAM. Its leadership realising that it could not depend on the army to provide GBAD. The USAF also owned Rapier FSC, crewed by RAF and Turkish Air Force personnel, and Roland and Patriot, crewed by Luftwaffe personnel.

***

[1] The Rapier systems for these three squadrons had been purchased by and still belonged to the USAF.

[2] Wing Commander Mike Fonfé outlines the plan for Patriot, HVM and additional Skyguard/Oerlikon in ‘The Falklands Guns – The Story of the Captured Argentine Artillery That Became Part of the RAF Regiment’ (Barnsley 2023), ps.246-247.

[3] Turkish manned Rapiers that defended USAF bases in Turkey would also upgrade to FSC. The Turkish Air Force would also upgrade to the similar Rapier 2000.

[4] RAF Gibraltar and RAF Wideawake were felt to be vulnerable to Soviet SLCM and would be where a flight from the second squadron would be deployed to.

[5] See a separate slightly re-written fact-file to be posted soon.

[6] Formed during the Transition to War; incorporated former D to F Flights of 85 Squadron.

[Bernard Woolley]

Accompanying Pictures

[James1978]

Interesting fact file. Very thorough.

[Bernard Woolley]

Thank you. I was inspired to write it after reading Wing Commander Fonfé. I had known about the competition for MSAM, but has not known just how far along in @ the planning had gone. The information about the Anglo-German LAA squadron was especially interesting.

[Pdf27]

I've got a couple of issues with the logic of it, which will no doubt turn out to be a case of @ being stranger than fiction:

1. SAMP/T, Patriot and NASAMS 1 really aren't comparable - 75 mile range for SAMP/T firing ASTER 30, 50-100 miles for Patriot depending on variant, and 16 miles for NASAMS 1. If you've already got Rapier and are defending fixed targets like the RAF then NASAMS 1 really doesn't offer a huge amount - and more to the point doesn't respond to the same specification as the other two systems.
2. Having Skyguard and Starstreak in the same unit makes no sense. Starstreak was essentially designed from the ground up against the same type of target as Skyguard, and the high missile speed was specifically because the early studies identified that a fast missile was the best and most effective effector type. The only rationale I can think of is that Skyguard has a rudimentary blindfire capability while Starstreak can't operate in mist/fog - that's pretty weak however.

[Bernard Woolley]

The MSAM competition is from @. I would guess that NASAMS 1 would been eliminated from the competition early on. I only have three sources for the competition and I will double check if it was the basic NASAMS 1 that was on offer. Fonfé was involved in the planning for deployment of Patriot, additional Rapier and HVM.

Skyguard/Oerlikon seems to have been a highly effective system, btw. IMVHO, it’s a bit of a shame the RAF binned it.

Adding HVM to Rapier and LAA squadrons is something I have surmised based on the best information I was able to find. Using locally recruited RAuxAF Regiment personnel was my invention.