This comes after speculation that the order for five E-7 Wedgetail aircraft could be reduced to three to save money.
Wedgetail is an airborne early warning and control system, commonly known as AWACs or AEW&C. They are designed to track multiple targets at sea or in the air over a considerable area for long periods of time.
Lord Moonie, a non-affiliated member of the House of Lords, asked via a written question:
“To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many E-7 Wedgetail AWACS systems they plan to procure; and what is the anticipated delivery timescale of each such system.”
Baroness Goldie, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:
“In March 2019, HM Treasury and the Ministry of Defence approved the procurement of five E-7 Wedgetail aircraft, however, discussions regarding the final E-7 Wedgetail fleet size are on-going with a decision expected in the first half of this year. The first UK E-7 Wedgetail is expected to enter service with the Royal Air Force in 2023.”
Media reports have already suggested the Ministry of Defence plans to reduce an order for new early warning radar aircraft.
The Wedgetail aircraft programme has already been criticised by MPs unhappy about the lack of a competition to replace the RAF’s existing Sentry aircraft – known as its “eye in the sky”.
Reports in the media now claim the planned purchase of five replacement aircraft could be reduced to three to save money. The MoD has not confirmed this. But could this leave the UK with a capability gap?
In September 2020 The Times’s defence correspondent, Lucy Fisher, reported on Twitter that the MoD is considering reducing the number of aircraft to be bought from five to three. Jane’s Defence Weekly magazine confirmed with an unnamed senior MOD source that the MoD is considering a reduction to save money.
In the Defence Equipment Plan 2019, the MOD forecast the costs of the Wedgetail programme to be £2.16 bn. When asked about the difference, the Minister for Defence Procurement explained the figure of £1.51 bn relates to the value of the aircraft procurement contract, whereas the £2.16 figure includes training and future support costs.
The National Audit Office has described the defence equipment plan as “unaffordable“. The NAO also advise that the MoD has already reduced the number of Sentry aircraft from six to three in 2020 to save money.
This would be a sad outcome. Australia has 7 with nearly half the number of frontline fighter aircraft.
Boeing will just increase the price if we cut our order so a complete false economy.
AEW is one of those capabilities that does rely on european countries supporting each other which is why nato has a few stationed in Europe. I think France only operates 4 aircraft. Australia needs 7 because they have no neighbours able to share the load with.
Apologies, 6 not 7.
Yes 6 is the correct number, but you might find this bit of info interesting.
When the Government here in Oz produced the new 10 year defence acquisition plan last year, one of the projects planned to start at the end of the decade, is a project to start looking at the eventual replacement of Wedgetail sometime well into the 2030s.
The one thing that was mentioned was that the number of replacement aircraft would be increased.
My thoughts at the moment say, take what you can, but this is stretching the point a bit!
Here we go again. Let’s buy a cutting edge system but let’s see if we can’t reduce it’s effectiveness by reducing the numbers or leaving something out. Just once…I would like to see an order go through from start to finish without, using a technical MOD term, being faffed about with. .
Would we be better of getting rid of the E3 Sentry and having all Wedgetails , this would give us a modern fleet based on the 737’s Wedgetails and Poseidons
We are getting rid of E3 Sentry. We are also getting rid of Sentinel – could we keep all Wedgetails on that basis?
Hi Julian……since Boris announced the extra defence budget we’ve lost a couple of Wedgetails, Sentinels.Sentries..and gained some fantasy T32…..
would be good to hear where the new budget is going Australia seems to be going in the right direction
Ian, you mentioned Australia, you might find this interesting reading:
https://www1.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-11/2020_Force_Structure_Plan.pdf
It’s a PDF of the 2020 Force Structure Plan that the Government here in Oz released mid last year.
Lists all major active Defence projects for the next 10 years and beyond in some cases too.
It also details a timeline for the eventual replacement of the RAAF Wedgetail fleet, a larger fleet, starting around 2030 and running into the 2040s.
The budget allowance for that project has a range of A$14b – A$21.1b.
Some serious dollars being allocated for that project.
Cheers,
Sentinels announced in 2015 it was being retired, so nothing new. We have operated only 3 E3’s since 2017, so nothing new. And it’s only speculation the order for E7’s is going to be cut. And maybe there is a better way of providing AEW that doesn’t need an expensive airliner airframe, and a large crew, and that would be a sitting duck in a serious shooting war, with a determined and technological advanced adversey. We are gaining P8, Protector UCAV’s, more Shadows. Carrier Strike, F35. And we badly need new cyber capabilities.
Here’s a novel idea: how about we actually buy all the numbers we initially planned for?
Careful now, that would be a drastic change in policy for UK defence…
So…. The UK Government originally planed to procure five Wedgetail, leaks to the media that the order will be cut as low as three, but eventually announces four aircraft.
People will only remember the number three mentioned then when it’s four it will look like a win!
Very ‘yes Minister’ indeed!
If they are cutting numbers i would be more worried about how many type 26 we will get…we all know what happened to the type 45 first 12 then 8 bought 6..lets hope they leave them alone!!!
I am doubtful the Type 26s will be cut; any lower than 8 and you don’t physically have enough ships to maintain the commitments they’re built for. 2 escorting the carrier group, one protecting home waters/ assisting SSBNs out of Faslane.
If true this is really disappointing.
ISR is a key UK area of expertise and enabler and we need to be getting more of these items not less.
Wedgetail is pretty good value for money from what I understand, so not sure this is a good decision at all
but lets wait and see
I don’t know, it seems to fit in with procurement decisions these past few years and decades. Pare down everything to try maintain capability in everything.
This is very disappointing to hear, 5 aircraft already were on the low side. If going by the rule of three, we would be down to 1 aircraft operational aircraft at any one time. This would be the bare minimum for maintaining AEW for QRA, UK ADIZ use, and would basically make any deployment in support of operations unfeasible. With the 737NG line shutting down very soon, this is an incredibly short sighted decision. I’d gladly trade several of the army’s light role battalions for another Wedgetail or two.
A little more info: Google:
The Equipment Plan 2020-2030
and download the PDF. Note not much in the way of actual equipment procurement, but it does go a long way (in only how the Government can manage to drag out any subject) in the pan of action.
Until the integrated review is published everything is just speculation and for all we know is part of negotiation tactics with Boeing, who lets not forget have tried to increase the price. Also if we have been operating with 3 for years, would 3 or 4 not suffice?
The problem with operating only 3 to 4 is that they cannot cover the whole of the UK’s airspace let alone the NATO responsibility, i.e. the GIUK gap. Especially when you consider one will be offline for a period of time undergoing scheduled maintenance. It also means they if they are doing routine work over the UK, they cannot be spared for deployments, especially in support of the Navy.
As Australia are finding even 8 are not enough for their Northern coastline let alone the whole of their coastline. Which is why they are procuring the high altitude long endurance MQ-4C Triton UAV. It has both a X band AESA radar and a EO turret for surveillance. Due to the remoteness of the Northern coastline flying in congested airspace is not a problem for them.
Daveyb, you mentioned Australia, here’s an accurate list of aircraft types and numbers.
The RAAF currently has 6 E-7A, 12 P-8A (plus 2 more on order, and 1 option yet to be exercised), 6 MQ-4C (on order, plus 1 option), The Government has also selected MQ-9B Skyguardian (same as the UK, 12–16 are planned), and there are also 4 MC-55A (on order, highly modified Gulfstream G550 for the AISREW role).
A reasonable number of types and airframes for the various AEW&C, EW and ISR roles.
Cheers,
3 airframes will be insufficient, 5 is the absolute minimum required to maintain a credible capability.
Afternoon All
It’s good to see we still get worked up with regards the number of platforms we are purchasing to meet a requirement without fully understanding if the platform alone is the right solution to meet the need.
We currently utilise the E-3D Sentry to fulfil an airborne early warning role and the RAF are responsible for making sure there are enough hours available so that these aircraft can meet that need.
Within the confines of the UKADGE the AEW role is fulfilled by a series of ground based radar systems located from the coast of Norway through to ground stations in the UK. These stations are all declared to NATO and feed into the wider NATO air defence network. In the event of Russian aircraft being deployed toward the UKADGE the RAF normally send 2 Typhoon aircraft as part of the QRA system and a Voyager incase more aircraft are needed to track the Russian aircraft within the UKADGE area of responsibility and to refuel aircraft on task. UKADGE very rarely relies on an airborne E-3D for this responsibility. The E-3D is sometimes tasked to support air missions that happen outside of the UKADGE supported UK aircraft or NATO aircraft when they are carrying out specific missions and where NATO support isn’t available.
In the event of conflict overseas E-3D’s are sent to provide, in coalition with allies, the AEW services due to ground radar not being viable or available.
With the advent of modern technology air platforms are no longer single role, the perform a multitude of roles dependent on the need and have been designed this way to cope with the increase in cost of platforms, the advances in technology and the need to get more value out of the asset. If it isn’t on task its costing money.
Limited budgets means the single services are having to make some tough decisions, they are having to present to the MoD how best they can achieve the outcome they have been set – this doesn’t mean asking the MoD if they can like for like replace legacy platforms with new ones.
It means that the RAF have to look at the tasks they have been set and how best they can meet the need taking into account the people, processes, organisation, technology and facilities they have available to them and where they see themselves in 10 years time – where the threat may have changed.
The sensor suite on an F-35 is far superior on any of the legacy aircraft it has replaced (Harrier/Jaguar/Tornado) and its ability to communicate utilising MADL etc. reduces the need for an airborne surveillance “target” which has now been effectively eliminated due to the advance in HSLRAAM which the Russians and Chinese have been developing for the last 20 years.
With the work going on at Air Command, including utilising the Voyager as an airborne C2 suite (I refer you to paragraph 3) shows that you can use other assets to fulfil a multitude of roles.
The Royal Navy have further advanced this concept with their Merlin ASACS concept where the Merlin Mk2 ASW platform can be re-roled at short notice with an “ASACS fit” to meet the fleet requirement for over the horizon AEW.
Before we start getting concerned about what the RAF are looking to sunset let’s look at how they think they can meet the requirements given to them by the MoD. Some of the decisions they make will make certain people extremely disappointed, others will “grasp the nettle” and look to the future.
We have F-35B with SPEAR 3 coming soon.
We have F-35B with MADL and ODIN coming soon.
We have Typhoon being fully realised as a true multirole platform.
We have P-8 reaching IOC (still lots of work to be done there though).
TEMPEST is funded through until the early 2020’s (with international partners).
RAF Space Command with a Director of Space coming on line.
The OneWeb LEO constellation being delivered.
A new Space port in the North of Scotland.
To deliver solutions the RAF think they need to meet the future need some tough decisions have had to be made.
Sentinel – great platform but never affordable in the long run
E-3D – never fully realised and not required within the UKADGE (against a risk balance exercise)
Happy to be “shot down” (but not for grammar – thats a work in progress)
Cheers
Lee
I agree with everything you say Lee. It’s not about platforms but about capabilities, spread of the capabilities, mobility of those capabilities and their survivability.
Grammar is OK too.
If we are already talking about cutting the size of the already inadequate E7 fleet, the future looks pretty bleak for AWACS in RAF service. What is to stop the E7 going the same way as the E3D? The aircraft will require a mid life upgrade which will be expensive. The very small fleet will make such an upgrade costly and I doubt the RAAF will be able or willing to absorb all of any development costs of a joint upgrade programme. . By then the MOD will be just as short of funds and their willingness to upgrade the very small E7 fleet must be questionable. If the RAAF don’t upgrade the E7 no one else will. . The USAF have shown little interest in the E7 and it now seems likely the USAF will not replace the E3 with another platform but divide its many roles into a number of other new platforms and systems probably around mid 2030’s. So should the E7 for the RAF now just be seen as a stop gap measure until a new concept is developed by the US and adopted by NATO to replace the their E3s. As a stop gap the number of platforms becomes less sensitive especially if the MOD/politicians believe they will not have to fight a major conflict in the next 20 years and an AWACs capability is mainly required for the expeditionary roles such as recently undertaken by the E3s and E7 in the Middle East where the West has air superiority, the operating airspace was uncontested and the aircraft were based close to the operating area What will happen if the RN wake up to the real long range threat to their carriers operating East of Suez and they ask for RAF long range AEW cover to augment whatever capability the Crowsnest helicopters can provide, a fleet of 3 aircraft will have some difficulty providing even partial support in those circumstances.
Australia will spend the money regardless as it has no one else ‘close by’ to help out (aircraft wise). Both S. Korea & Turkey also operate 4 each.