Ministers are facing calls to order an urgent review of Britain’s ‘woefully weak’ anti-missile defences in the wake of Russia’s use of deadly new hypersonic weapons.

The calls come amid claims from a senior Army commander that the UK would be ‘wide open to attack’ if Vladimir Putin aimed his new missiles at this country.

Last night, the Ministry of Defence insisted that Britain operated a ‘robust approach to air and missile defence’.

However, Putin’s use of his new missile against Ukraine – coupled with his veiled threats to use such weapons against Britain – has sparked demands for action.

Critics claimed that, compared to Israel’s multi-layered missile defence abilities – including its famous ‘Iron Dome’ – Britain has few resources.

They said the UK lacked any real equivalent of Israel’s capability to intercept ballistic missiles at high altitude and up to 90 miles away.

Former Tory defence minister Tobias Ellwood told The Mail on Sunday that even without Russia’s new missile the UK is ‘woefully unprotected against mass drone and missile threats.

‘Compared to Washington DC, with all its defence systems available in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, London is almost a sitting duck.’

He added that Putin’s use of the ‘Oreshnik’ missile, which can allegedly fly at ten times the speed of sound, should serve as ‘a resounding wake-up call across Whitehall’.

In response, the MoD highlighted that it has:

However, experts said last night that only six Sky Sabre launchers had been purchased by the MoD, with two currently in service in the Falklands and one in Poland.

Tim Ripley, editor of the Defence Eye website said: ‘Each night, the Russians are firing more than 150 missiles and drones at Kyiv. Yet we only have three Sky Sabre launchers and they can only be loaded with eight missiles each.

‘The Type 45 destroyers are better. They have 48 missiles but once those are fired, they have to go back to port to reload, which takes days. And only two of our six Type 45s are currently fit for action.’

Former Army chief Lord Dannatt said there had been a missile defence programme before the 1997/98 defence review but it was cancelled, with resources diverted to the rest of the defence budget.

He called on the MoD ‘on behalf of the nation’ to look again at the anti-missile provision ‘and reach judgments on whether they should think about restarting a programme. But he warned it might well cost ‘many billions’.

An MoD spokesman said: ‘The UK operates a robust approach to air and missile defence, provided by Royal Navy, British Army and Royal Air Force assets equipped with a range of advanced capabilities, working in tandem with our Nato allies.

The Defence Secretary also recently announced the UK will lead a new initiative to integrate and strengthen our collective air and missile defence.’